Cross Fire: The Eight Years with Eisenhower

MP!

C.F.T.E.Y.W.E.

$6.95

"The first time I saw Dwight D. Eisenhower,
he offered me a job." With these characteris-
tically forthright words

Ezra Taft Benson

begins a book about eight fruitful, tumultu-
ous years in the Eisenhower administration.

C] - s

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH E1SE1H0WER

is a book filled with behind-the-scenes facts
and forthright opinions, as well as a testi-
mony of personal religious faith. Mr. Benson
describes the "hot seat" he came to occupy,
and the reader soon gets a sense of the prin-
ciples and stamina required to stand up to
raging Congressmen and party-line politi-
cians, a press that varied from gloomy to
critical to warm and admiring, and reports
that the public would have welcomed his
swift demise from public office.

But survive Mr. Benson did— he was one
of the two cabinet members who were with
President Eisenhower through his eight
years, and won more than a few of his points
plus the admiration of the American people.

Held to be a political liability by some
Republicans and a whipping boy for the
Democrats, Benson stood firm in his conserv-
ative beliefs— beliefs that won him the farm
vote in 1956 and again in 1960.

Mr. Benson writes a detailed and personal
account of his beliefs and political record.
Here are the crucial moments as Mr. Ben-
sons future political life lay in the collective
hands of Congress, the personalities that in-
fluenced Jiistory through these eight years

(continued on back flap)

WHMH

i *v^j$j§8

villi

If ' ** '■•*

w

W\

m.

,4P^

»» '

,...* V&--' „

* **r

Wmmmmmmm

mm tfflbfiM

mm

D DDD1 0503571 7

973.92 B4Tc
Benson
Cross fire

62-23589

-7c

^ r, «. n ^«

Eivo.

Gross Tire

"' CROSS FIRE

OCT 1 1 198S

The editorial "Straight Talk" by Thomas Anderson is reprinted with permission of
the publisher. Copyright © December 1959, Farm and Ranch Publishing Company,
Inc. All rights reserved.

Excerpts from the article "Benson Creates European Good Will" by Ovid Martin,
November 1959, are reprinted with the permission of The Associated Press*

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER 62-1 1 368

COPYRIGHT © I962 BY EZRA TAFT BENSON

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FIRST EDITION

To the "Team"

—My Staff— and the many other devoted persons of the United States

Department of Agriculture

S223589

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

While I alone must take full responsibility for the subject matter con-
tained herein, many have contributed in the preparation of this volume.
To all of them, my deep appreciation.

I owe a special debt of gratitude to:

Dr. Clarence J, ("Doc") Enzler, a long-time USDA employee of
high competence and unqualified integrity, who did much of the basic
research, arrangement of materials, gave detailed assistance in the style
of presentation, and did some of the writing.

My staff of loyal, devoted and dedicated public servants without
whose united and unselfish service this book would have been impossible.

Members of my family who gave helpful suggestions and endured
demands on my time which lessened the hours with them.

Sam Vaughan of Doubleday for encouragement, editorial help, and
for seeing the project through publication,

Dwight D. Eisenhower, who invited me, a stranger, into his Cabinet
and who through eight difficult but rewarding years, offered his heroic
and . . . well, that story follows.

CONTENTS

Foreword xvii

1952
1

You Can't Refuse 3

2
A Farmer on the Road 13

3
Setting Up Shop— I 28

1953

4

Setting Up Shop— II

43

5
First Chorus: Pastoral

Second Chorus: Thunderheads

5i
60

6

Selling

7i

7
Trouble at Home

81

8
Trouble in Washington

87

9
"Everything Seems to Be about Patronage"

107

Speaking Out

112

x CONTENTS

10

A Sad Drought, a Sad Death 123

11

Two Advisory Bodies *33

12

"Ike" Gets into the Fight 144

High Tide— Temporarily *53

!954

Don't Make a Career of Chasing Cows 163

14

"It Looks Like a Mouse" 173

"You Can Count on Me" 183

"What Is Right for America ..." 191

16

The Washington Whirlpool 196

A General's Advice 201

Who Won 213

1955

18
Hurricanes — Senior and Junior Grade 225

Trade Winds 237

The Quiet Months 242

20

A Problem of Plenty 254

Salesman at Large 260

21
The World Held Its Breath 269

CONTENTS XI

22

An Offensive Is Planned 278

1956

23
"Use the Surplus to Use Up the Surplus" 289

The Ever-normal Doghouse 297

24
How to Make Up Your Mind 3°3

25
This Bill Is Not Right 312

"I Have Today Approved ..." 3 l8

26
The 1956 Campaign 3 2 5

27
The Year of Might Have Been 33°"

1957

28
The Short, Happy "Era of Good Feeling" 345

29
Scenes behind the Scenes 357

30
Around the World — in 25 Days 3^4

"Blame It on 'B'" 372

1958

3i
"Agin Every One of Them" 379

The Cross-eyed Approach 39 l

Today's Hero — Tomorrow's Heel 397

33
Licked and Licked Bad 4°7

Xll CONTENTS

1959

34
Big Budget, Big Debt, Big Government 421

35
Third and Goal 428

Last Days of a Heroic Figure 438

36

Fussin 3 and Feudin' 444

Variety 453

37
Another Veto, Another Summer 459

Mr. K. Comes to Town 467

38

Agriculture under Communism 472

A Church in Russia 485

39
"Black Sunday to White Wednesday" 489

i960

40
The Last Message 499

41
The Nixon Enigma 510

42
Stymied 5 „

The Conventions c 2 q

43
In Search of Markets, and of Friends 534

The i960 Elections caa

44
A Last Trade Trip ^5

An Administration Cleans Out Its Desk 562

CONTENTS Xlll

45

As for Me: The Credo of a Conservative 569

46

The Hot Seat 582

Appendices 591

Index 609

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Following page ig6

Dwight D. Eisenhower meets Ezra Taft Benson

The author with his family in Salt Lake City

The Eisenhower Cabinet in session

Talking with Nebraska fanners

The author and J. Willard Marriott

The author and spring ewes at the Marriott's Fairfield Farm

Surplus problems for the Department of Agriculture

Discussion with Midwestern Congressmen

Congressmen Paul Douglas, Jesse Wolcott, Frank Carlson, Wright Matman

Presenting the 1954 Drought Report to President Eisenhower

The author with Representatives Charles Hoeven, Leslie Arends and Sid

Simpson
Exchanging views with Allen J. Ellender and Estes Kefauver
Corn farmers vote to eliminate government controls
Barbed wire for Ezra Taft Benson
The author as rain-maker

Following page 412

Yugoslavian family welcomes the Bensons
A visit with Israeli Premier David Ben Gurion
Addressing a group of Russian worshippers
Hungarian rebels seizing tank in Budapest
A gallery of political cartoons
Senator Robert A. Taft
Governor Nelson Rockefeller
Senator Barry M. Goldwater
Richard M. Nixon
Milton S. Eisenhower

FOREWORD

On February I, 1961, about two weeks after leaving my Cabinet post,
I participated at Michigan State University in a non-political discus-
sion of the nation's farm problems with four other past Secretaries of
Agriculture. The five of us — the others were Henry A. Wallace, Claude
R. Wickard, Clinton P. Anderson, and Charles F. Brannan — had oc-
cupied the Agriculture chair in various Cabinets for the preceding
twenty-eight years.

Each of us was asked to respond to three questions:

Why does a Secretary do the things he does?

What changes affecting agriculture took place during your term of
office?

What of agriculture's future?

When these questions were posed at East Lansing, I considered them
pertinent. I still regard them as pertinent. In fact, I find that, without
conscious design, I've attempted to answer them at considerable length
in this book.

Cross Fire was made possible in part by the fact that throughout
the eight years in office, I kept a daily journal in which were recorded
the fresh recollections of each day's events, incidents, conversations. It
ran to ten volumes and totaled, I judge, some three-quarters of a mil-
lion words. This journal encompasses the body of facts around which
the book is written.

Why was the book written? One reason is that I believe the more
the people know about what goes on in government the better. The
people need to know more about what their leaders are like, what mo-
tivates them, how decisions are made, the kind of infighting that takes

Xyjjj FOREWORD

place as political forces and figures struggle to pass or defeat legisla-
tive programs and in so doing mold the future of this republic.

What did Eisenhower really think of Senator Taft? What prompted
former Secretary of Agriculture Clinton Anderson to exclaim, Benson
will get a friendly reception from Senator Aiken "but he'll look a
long time before he finds another friendly face — mine"?

What did the President say when he called me to the White House
a month after I'd taken the oath and it was freely predicted that I
was about to become the first casualty of the Eisenhower Cabinet?

There was speculation about the reasons for President Eisenhower's
conduct when even those in our own party branded me a political li-
ability. Many, too, have conjectured about a widely rumored "falling
out" involving Vice President Nixon and me during the tense days of
i960. Still others, I'm sure, are curious about Cabinet meetings, about
the impact of such personalities as George Humphrey, and the late
John Foster Dulles and "Engine Charlie" Wilson.

While answering these and hundreds of other "inside" questions, I've
tried to explain what went on in the mind of one man suddenly
plunged into the maelstrom of Washington politics. And what happens
to a family man, and a man's family, when the glaring light of po-
litical publicity is for the first time focused upon them.

Running through this book is, of course, the "farm problem" and an
eight-year struggle to bring more common sense and less politics into the
search for its solutions. The farm problem is much more than the two
words indicate. It is a problem not of the farm alone but of the future
of freedom in America. To those who contend that there is today little
difference between most Republicans and Democrats, or between con-
servatives and liberals, I say that there is a world of difference in their
respective approaches to the farm problem because there is also a world
of difference in their approaches to freedom.

Perhaps all sixteen men who have served as Secretary of Agriculture
each felt that he was acting in the best interests of agriculture and
the nation. Well-intentioned persons reach different solutions and make
different decisions, not because they are insincere, but because different
backgrounds, different philosophies, different political persuasions and
some foibles lead them to see things in different lights. But this does
not prevent one course from being right and another wrong.

Having been through Washington's cross fire, I realize that a Cabinet
member does not operate in a vacuum, but in the rough and tumble
of Washington politics. In pursuing politics, which is sometimes defined
as the art of the possible, a Secretary, at times, must compromise. The

FOREWORD XIX

test is to be found in what he is not willing to compromise — no matter
how great the pressure.

Because I believe that this nation cannot go on compromising a little
bit of freedom here and a little bit of freedom there without eventually
losing all, I am convinced that the onslaught against the freedom of
individuals to plant, to market, to compete, and to make their own de-
cisions must be stemmed. It was stemmed — and reversed — for eight
years; but now the onslaught has begun again. This concerns not farm-
ers alone but each one of us in this nation whatever be our occupation,
wherever our home.

As I think about it, I realize that there were many reasons why I
wanted to write Cross Fire. But there was one reason why I had to write
it. This book became inevitable because I am deeply persuaded that
our precious, God-given freedom is dying and because, to paraphrase an-
other, too many good men do nothing to preserve it.

1

You Can't Refuse

The first time I ever saw Dwight D. Eisenhower, he offered me a job.

Considering that we had never met before, that he had just been
elected President of the United States in an overwhelming landslide,
and that the job was as a member of his Cabinet, I was duly impressed.
But I didn't want the job.

It was Monday afternoon, November 24, 1952. I sat in an outer
office of the Eisenhower headquarters at the Hotel Commodore in New
York City waiting to meet the General, and more than half hoping it
was all a mistake.

Nobody in his right mind, I told myself, would seek to be Secretary
of Agriculture in times like these. Having been rather close to the de-
partment as county agent and Idaho state extension worker in the
1930s, and later, while living in Washington from 1939 to 1944, as
executive secretary of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives,
I knew something of what the post entailed: the splintering cross fires,
the intense pressures, the tangled problems.

It was perfectly obvious that the next man who sat in the Cabinet
chair reserved for the Secretary of Agriculture would find it a mighty
hot seat.

But it wasn't only the problems and pressures that concerned me. We
all have those. Like many Americans, I was reluctant to get into poli-
tics actively. Sure, I wanted to see men of high ideals and good char-
acter elected and appointed to run the government, but that was vastly
different from plunging in myself, head over heels, at the age of fifty-
three. I guess we feel about it the way Thomas Jefferson did when he
wrote to Martha Jefferson Randolph, "Politics is such a torment that

4 GROSS FIRE

I would advise everyone I love not to mix with it." Of course, that
has been one of our troubles as a nation and especially it's been one of
the troubles of the Republican Party. Republicans seem to attract men
and women of stature and good will who want to support good gov-
ernment — but they themselves don't want to sit in government hot seats.

Most of all, however, I was more than satisfied with the work I was
already doing as one of the Council of the Twelve, a part of the
governing body of the Mormon Church. I neither desired nor intended
to make a change.

So, as I waited for General Eisenhower, the question that kept re-
turning was: What in the world am I doing here anyway?

Have you ever wondered how a man, or a woman, gets tapped for
the Cabinet? I have; and in my own case I still do, because some of
the background leading up to my selection remains a mystery.

The first intimation I had that I might be under consideration for
the Eisenhower Cabinet came on Thursday night, November 20, 1952.
Senator Arthur V. Watkins of Utah telephoned from Washington to
ask if I knew that there was developing, as he put it, a "great ground
swell of support for Ezra Taft Benson as Secretary of Agriculture?'*
He had been contacted by several national farm groups that wanted me
for the post. The Utah State Farm Bureau, he said, was formally en-
dorsing me, and State Republican leaders had sent telegrams to Herbert
Brownell, Jr., one of the President-elect's chief lieutenants, urging my
appointment.

"No," I told the Senator, "I know nothing about all this."

Senator Watkins asked what the attitude of the Church would be
if the appointment was offered. "There's only one man who can an-
swer that— the president of the Church," I said. "I don't know what
his attitude would be. My life for the past eight years has been de-
voted fully to Church work, but I'd be glad to try anything President
McKay asks me to do."

Frankly, I didn't attach too much importance to the conversation be-
cause only a few days before I had been in the nation's capital on
official business of the Church, part of which involved participating in
the dedication of a church building in Chevy Chase, Maryland. While
there I'd had interviews with representatives of the Indian Service, the
Department of State, and General Lewis B. Hershey of Selective Service.
At no time had the possibility of a political office been mentioned.
Even in visits to several old friends at the offices of national farm or-
ganizations, nothing had been said.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 5

The next morning, after leaving my car on the parking lot at the
Church office building in Salt Lake City, I met President David O. Mc-
Kay who also was parking his car. We had a habit of going down to
the offices rather early in the morning. "I received a very important
telephone call last night," he said. "Brother Benson, my mind is clear
in the matter. If the opportunity comes in the proper spirit I think
you should accept."

I shook my head. "I can't believe that it will come. If it were Dewey
asking, it would be different. But I've never even seen Eisenhower, much
less met him or spoken with him. Besides I was a Taft man before the
convention."

Thomas E. Dewey and I had met briefly in 1944 when he was Gov-
ernor of New York and I was still with the National Council of Farmer
Cooperatives. Evidently he remembered this because, in 1948, when
he and Harold E. Stassen were contesting in the Oregon primary,
Dewey telephoned to ask if I could give him the names of farm
leaders who might be willing to support him in Oregon. Of course, I
gave him several names.

This was the primary in which Dewey and Stassen staged a radio
debate on Communism. My wife, Flora, and I heard the debate under
rather elevated circumstances. We tuned it in while sitting in our car
on top of a grease rack. We were getting a "lube" job while driving
from Salt Lake City to Seattle. But we heard every word and at the
end I said to her, "Dewey will win this primary. He took that debate
hands down."

We were still in Seattle when Dewey arrived to make a speech. When
he learned that Flora and I were in the city, he called the hotel and
invited me to sit on the platform while he delivered his address.

This is standard procedure in politics. National candidates use the
technique to indicate that they have local support and local politicians
like it because it gives them prestige. But since I wasn't running for
anything and didn't have any votes to deliver, I considered it just a
friendly gesture.

Dewey won the primary in Oregon and went on to capture the Re-
publican nomination. During his campaign against Truman in 1948
he called Salt Lake City to ask if I would serve on one of his two
agricultural committees — one was advisory, the other an action commit-
tee. I agreed to serve with the advisory group. As it turned out, the
group held only two meetings and I attended only the second.

6 CROSS FIRE

Then, a little later, while I was in Chicago for a cooperative meet-
ing, a Dewey organization man telephoned and invited me to dinner.
We couldn't work that out because of a prior commitment, but he
came to my room later in the evening and said: "The Governor asked
me to see you. He wants to know if you have any suggestions about
the campaign."

"I don't know anything about politics," I told him frankly.

"But the Governor's got a lot of confidence in your judgment."

"Well, I have two suggestions," I said, as he took a little black
book out of his pocket. "First of all, the Governor ought to come out
and attack the New Deal-Fair Deal. He hasn't taken them on at all.
All he does is offer to give the people more of the same. He's trying
to outpromise the New Dealers and he can't outpromise them. That's
one thing.

"Secondly, there's not a shred of spirituality in his talks. He's never
closed one of his talks as he should. This nation has a spiritual founda-
tion."

He wrote something in his little book.

The next day, I was in Louisville, making a tour of our Central At-
lantic States mission. I told the mission president about this incident.
"Well," he said, "tonight Dewey speaks in Los Angeles. He won't have
time to fit in your suggestions by then, if he's going to. But tomorrow
night he'll be speaking in Little Rock. And you and I will be driving so
we can hear it on the car radio. Let's see what happens."

The next night we were in Tennessee. In Dewey's Little Rock speech
we heard him for the first time vigorously attack the New Deal phi-
losophy. And he also ended his speech on a high spiritual plane,

I don't know whether my suggestions reached him or not, whether
the notes in the little black book were relayed. I just know that was
the sequence of events.

Our next contact was in California. He was in Fresno one day when
I was there visiting another mission. The mission president, a staunch
Republican, said, "Gosh, I'd sure like to meet Dewey."

"We could probably arrange it," I said. We stopped at Republican
headquarters and got a couple of tickets, and we sat right in the front
row in the park where Dewey was speaking. Afterward, this staunch Re-
publican, an old man, met Dewey. He was pleased, thought the candi-
date was forceful. "But he'd have greater appeal with a little more
height and a little less mustache."

Then I didn't see him again until a breakfast in Chicago, just before
the election, when he met with his two farm committees. We were all

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 7

thinking about the great victory that we were going to win the follow-
ing Tuesday. I remember there was a huge elephant cast in ice. It
must have been six feet tall. I remember it because in retrospect that
seems to have been the trouble with Dewey's campaign: it was cold,
icy — it never really warmed up.

At the breakfast Dewey asked if there were any suggestions on the
farm aspects of the campaign.

I said I had one suggestion. "The Governor hasn't said a thing about
his policy on the public domain, the Western range and forest lands.
The cattlemen are not very happy about it. They wonder where he
stands. I know it's too late to make a speech out of it, but he could
at least issue a release."

I had prepared a draft of a press release on the matter and had it
in my pocket. But such certainty of victory was in the air that my
suggestion was swamped by a wave of "This is no time to rock the
boat/' "It's in the bag," and similar remarks.

When the meeting ended, however, Dewey came over, put his hand
on my shoulder, and said, "I want to talk to you later on about a spot
in the Cabinet."

That same day I went on to New York to supervise the purchase of
a building near the corner of Fifth Avenue and 79th Street as head-
quarters for our Eastern States Mission of the Church.

One of Dewey's lieutenants soon telephoned and asked, "Mr. Ben-
son, if the offer should be made, would you be receptive to serving in
the Governor's Cabinet either as Secretary of Agriculture or as Secre-
tary of the Interior?"

Actually, the idea hit me with a dull thud, so I replied, "Don't
you think we'd better wait until after Tuesday?"

He laughed. "You know the election is just a formality, don't you?"

With both President Truman and Governor Dewey winding up their
campaigns in New York, the place was in such bedlam that I decided
to spend the weekend in Washington. On Saturday while at the home of
a friend, J. Willard Marriott, I had another phone call, this one from
the Republican National Committee. The gentleman inquired whether
my Church would look favorably on my serving in the Cabinet and,
if so, would I be willing. Again my answer was the same. So was the
reaction of the person on the other end of the line, except that his
laughter was almost uproarious, his confidence even more complete. "It's
in the bag," he said.

To this day, I never hear that expression without shivering a little
inside. It's a classic of complacency — a kind of complacency that, in

8 GROSS FIRE

another area of competition, could cost us both our freedom and the
end of this country as we know it.

The election was a thriller. It was so close that I sometimes wonder
whether Dewey wouldn't have won it if he had shaved off his mus-
tache. He'd have got a lot more votes if he had looked less like a city
slicker — and had fought a little harder. He would have made a strong
President as he was a strong Governor of New York State.

The point is that if Dewey had been elected in 1948, there would
have been some sense in my being offered a Cabinet post. But with
Eisenhower the President-elect in 1952, a man I'd never even met, no.
So despite what Senator Watkins and President McKay had said, I didn't
take the possibility too seriously. Time enough to cross when we came
to the bridge and I didn't think we would.

On Saturday, November 22, while I was in Utah with Elder Mark
E. Peterson, another Church official, Mr. Eisenhower placed a telephone
call to our home in Salt Lake City. My wife, Flora, got in touch with
me in Provo, a small city of about 20,000 population, at Clark's Men's
Store where I had gone to buy a suit, and told me that the General's
headquarters were trying to reach me.

My first thought was, There's really something to it, after all I de-
cided it might make sense to get off by myself for a while in some
little office where I could quietly consider a course of action.

So I went out to the campus of Brigham Young University in Provo
to think and to pray, and I also talked on the phone with President
McKay before taking the New York call. Again he encouraged me
to accept if it was a clear offer.

By the time I called the long-distance operator in New York, Gen-
eral Eisenhower had left his offices, but his brother, Milton — whom I
had known personally as a former official of the U. S. Department of
Agriculture, and who later became president of Kansas State and then
of Pennsylvania State University — had been directed to invite me to
come to New York for an interview at the Hotel Commodore at 2:00
o'clock Monday afternoon. I thought that the General was considering
several men and wanted a chance to look at some of them with whom
he was not acquainted.

After checking plane schedules, I called President McKay again. He
urged me to leave that night if possible to allow for the risk of bad
flying weather. When we had finished our work, at about 8:30 p.m.,
Mark Peterson and I drove back to Salt Lake City. Then, after hur-
riedly packing a few things and talking by telephone to our sons Reed,

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 9

in Texas, and Mark, in California, Flora and I drove to the airport.
Flora saw that the rapid turn of events had left me a little uncertain.
She put her hand on mine and said, "We'll leave it all in the hands of
the Lord." My wife is a woman about half my size and twice my worth
whose eyes can search out whatever there is of good in a person. She
is richly blessed with womanly wisdom.

We agreed to fast, and pray that the will of the Lord be done.

My plane left at about 12:30 a.m. and arrived in New York at
noon Sunday.

A cold that had bothered me for a couple of days now grew worse;
this, coupled with pills I had taken, made me extremely weak. So I
went to bed and stayed there. Next morning, Monday, somewhat better
but still weak and hoarse, I got up to prepare for the meeting. A period
of fervent prayer and a light breakfast helped. At noon I met with
Milton Eisenhower for lunch. He made it clear that there had been no
pressure at all from political quarters, but that I was the deliberate
and free choice of the President-elect, subject only to meeting him. He
assured me that I had also been recommended by Senator Robert A.
Taft and several other Republican leaders.

But still, sitting there waiting for the General, I wondered: Why me?
This is a political appointment and Fm not a politician. How well will
my views on farmers and farming fit those of the new Administration?

How much will the next Secretary have to say about farm policy?
Will he be expected to rubber-stamp programs with which he doesn't
agree?

Well, that I could never do.

Yet I knew from observation and experience that a Secretary's pro-
gram must be the President's program or he might just as well stay
home. I recalled when Chester Davis was appointed War Food Admin-
istrator by Roosevelt. He was appointed in March 1943, and he quit
in June of the same year. In his letter of resignation Davis stated that
he had assumed "a public responsibility while the authority, not only
over broad food policy but day-to-day actions, is being exercised else-
where." I knew that Davis quit partly because he didn't agree with
Roosevelt's policy of food subsidies and partly because Roosevelt didn't
give him the authority he had promised him.

I was aware, too, of the importance of presidential support. During
World War II, Roosevelt set up a four-man advisory committee com-
posed of the heads of the four major farm organizations — the Farm
Bureau, the National Grange, the Farmers Union, and the National

10 CROSS FIRE

Council of Farmer Cooperatives. The president of the National Council,
of which I was, as mentioned, executive secretary, was John D. Miller,
a fine, ordinarily calm man.

One day after a meeting at the White House, Miller came into my
office and walked back and forth in great agitation. Finally he stood
in front of my desk and he said, "Ezra, Fm going to say something to
you that I thought I would never say to any man.

"You know I've been a lifelong Democrat. But Fve lost confidence
in the President of the United States. I will never go to the White House
again as long as he's there. And I want you to take my place to repre-
sent the Council on this four-man advisory committee."

After serving on that committee, I knew how imperative it was for
any Secretary in the Cabinet to have the support of his President. You
just can't advocate a program the President is not for.

There would have to be a meeting of minds with Eisenhower before
I could even consider anything further.

I thought of a dozen personal problems that would arise if he did
make the offer: Moving to Washington, uprooting the family; throw-
ing our children, whom Flora and I had tried to bring up to be un-
pretentious, into the limelight; these and others.

But underneath all my uncertainty was this persistent and basic ques-
tion: Why give up, even for a time, the active work of my Church —
work that I loved and found so spiritually rewarding?

The internal debate went on.

One has a duty to serve his fellow men as best he can. As Secretary
of Agriculture, if I should be appointed, I would have a rare op-
portunity to fight effectively for my beliefs as an American. Was it
right to slam the door?

Yet how much was rationalization for the honor of serving in the
Cabinet? Not much I fear.

On the other hand, to reject a clear call to serve the country simply
because prestige and honor accompanied it would be false humility.
Acceptance of responsibility, conscience reminded me, had been one of
the basic threads of my life from childhood on. My thoughts kept re-
turning to the words of President McKay, "My mind is clear in the
matter. If the opportunity comes in the proper spirit I think you
should accept." This impressed me much. Fd just have to wait to see
what the General had to say.

The door to the inner offices opened. Milton Eisenhower came out
and ushered me in. Frankly curious as to how the man they called

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER II

Ike would impress me, I saw a powerfully built person, a little under six
feet, with a smile fresh and warm as a sunny summer's day, a face
that seemed almost to glow with health and vigor. I liked him im-
mediately.

He looked younger than his pictures indicated. As vigor was his domi-
nant quality, the lively, blue, direct eyes were his most striking feature.
You knew in an instant they mirrored the inner man, that they would
reveal all his quick changing moods: interest, welcoming warmth, de-
light, icy rebuke or cold anger.

I don't remember just how he opened the conversation, but the talk
was so congenial and easy that he made me feel thoroughly at home
right away. My next impression was that he was decisive and confident,
too; he inspired an immediate faith in his ability and leadership.

The General spoke pleasantly of his visit to Salt Lake City during
the campaign. Then he said, "I want you to help me do a job of the
utmost importance to the nation," and he mentioned his concern about
the growing government control over agriculture.

I said that I, too, was worried about the New Deal-Fair Deal pro-
gram for agriculture. And then, impulsively, I blurted out some of the
thoughts I'd had while waiting. "I believe that we need to put our
emphasis on research, education, and market development, and I be-
lieve, further, that farmers should be permitted to make their own de-
cisions on their own farms with a minimum of government interference,"
I said, probably in a rush of words.

"Now, that's in conflict with the philosophy of the New Deal and it
may be in conflict with some of the Republicans in Congress, but that's
the way I feel And I'd find it very difficult to be in Washington sup-
porting a program I didn't believe in."

The General seemed to know just why I had been so blunt. He met
this head on. "Mr. Benson," he replied decisively, "you'll never be asked
to support a program you don't believe in."

I gave him what seemed to me several very good reasons why he
should appoint someone else to this position. I had been a supporter
of Senator Taft, and although not active in his behalf, had lent my name
to a Citizens-for-Taft Committee. I said to the General, "It isn't be-
cause I haven't admired you, but I haven't known you — never seen
you until today. And I've always thought it would be a little better,
other things being equal, not to have a military man in the White
House. Now I want you to know that."

He nodded, flashed his warm smile, and said, "That's perfectly all

12 CROSS FIRE

right. But it's also all the more reason for me to have good civilians in
the Cabinet."

I put forward my next reason. "I come from a state that is usually-
considered rather unimportant agriculturally. Even my original native
state of Idaho is not one of the leading agricultural states. It's been
the custom to select the Secretary of Agriculture from the big farm belt
of the Middle West. What's going to be the reaction if you select a
man from Utah to be your Secretary of Agriculture when we've only
got about 3 per cent of our state land area under cultivation? I know
there are several good men in the Middle West who would like to be
Secretary. And at least three of them I could support wholeheartedly.
They'd make good Secretaries. They've been working hard for you and
surely you should consider them."

Finally I said, "And I wonder about the wisdom of calling a clergy-
man, a Church official, to be a Cabinet member. What will be the re-
action from other religious groups, from people generally?"

The General mulled that over for a few seconds. Then, looking
straight at me, he said with compelling earnestness, "Surely you know
that we have the great responsibility to restore the confidence of our peo-
ple in their own government — that means we've got to deal with spir-
itual matters. I feel your Church connection is a distinct asset.

"And speaking of confidence," he continued, "you seem to have the
confidence of the farm people to an unusual degree."

"General, I'd rather have that— and keep it— than be Secretary of
Agriculture."

He said he was glad I felt that way, but there was no reason why
the two should not go together. He would depend on me to guide the
Administration in agricultural policy, and repeated that he would never
ask me to support any program or policy whether in agriculture or
outside of it with which I did not agree.

Finally, he clinched his argument; "We've got a job to do. I didn't
want to be President, frankly, when the pressure started. But you can't
refuse to serve America. I want you on my team, and you can't say no."

That did it. The conditions of President McKay's counsel had been
met. Even though I felt I had already received from my Church what
in my eyes was a greater honor than government could bestow, and I
told him so, I accepted the responsibility of becoming Secretary of Agri-
culture to serve for not less than two years — if he wanted me that long.

Then, arm in arm, we went to another room to face a group of
reporters and cameramen.

A Farmer on the Road

Back at the Biltmore Hotel where I was staying, telephone calls and
telegrams poured in, tying up the line so that the operator could hardly
get through a call to my wife in Salt Lake City. But she finally man-
aged it.

"Flora," I said, "I wanted to call you first. General Eisenhower has
asked me to be in his Cabinet and I've accepted the invitation."

"I knew he would. And I knew you'd accept."

"It wiU mean a terrible responsibility — and a great many problems
for both of us."

"I know, but it seems to be God's will. How do you feel? How's your
cold?"

"The cold's a little better. As to how I feel, I think I feel more like
praying than anything else."

My next call was to Washington, to J. Edgar Hoover, director of
the FBI. After telling him who I was I said, "The President-elect has
just asked me to serve in his Cabinet. I would like you to run a com-
plete security check on me."

He didn't utter a word for a couple of seconds, but then he replied,
"Mr. Benson, that isn't necessary. We don't have to do that."

"I would appreciate it if you would do it. I think it would be good
for the President and good for the country to know. And I'll expect
you to make a full check on aU the top men that I call to serve with
me.

Hoover agreed to proceed at once.

That evening I had dinner with two old friends, Jim McConnell and
Karl Butler. McConnell, a Pennsylvania farmer, was a long-time Re-

ja CROSS FIRE

publican. Butler, a former USDA employee and now a consultant in agri-
culture for the AVCO Corporation, had known for several days about
the Cabinet possibility. Senator Taft had talked with him a week or so
before, regarding prospects for Secretary of Agriculture. Reminiscing,
Karl said, "When I mentioned your name, among one or two others,
Senator Taft was extremely interested. He asked me a lot of questions
about you. The next day, I understand, Taft met with General Eisen-
hower and they discussed various people for Cabinet posts.

"Later I heard from another source that you were being considered
favorably."

Jim, Karl, and I sat a long time over dinner discussing the best way
for me to inform myself about the job to be done and select key peo-
ple. How do you go about taking over direction of a vast governmental
organization? How do you pick your staff? How do you gain the con-
fidence of the employees you direct, when the vast majority of them
came into their jobs under Secretaries of an opposing political party?
How do you establish good relations with leaders in Congress? How do
you determine the pressing needs of your department's responsibility and
ways to meet them?

"I'd like to get in an airplane," I thought aloud, "and travel the
length and breadth of the land talking over farm problems with as
many interested and informed people as possible. It would help in select-
ing my staff — but I'd want to make the trip before taking office and
not at government expense."

In. the more than eight years that had elapsed since I had given up
the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives post in Washington, for
my Church assignment, I had continued to make many speeches to farm
groups and had just recently been chosen chairman of the board of
trustees of the American Institute of Cooperation (another farm co-op
association); but I had not been so close to agriculture as formerly.
What better way to get quickly reacquainted than by making a swing
around the country, talking with as many farmers and farm leaders
as possible? The more I thought about the idea, the better it seemed.
Jim and Karl agreed; if it could be worked out, I should do it.

Dead tired after this eventful day, I retired about u p.m. — but,
even so, sleep came only in fits and starts, and I got up at 3 : 30, when
the hotel and city had finally quieted, and sat in my bathrobe at the
desk scratching down notes on tentative future plans and thinking about
the unexpected turn of events that had brought a plain man to the
brink of a high position in the government of the choicest land on

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 15

earth. Never in all the fancies of boyhood had such a possibility seemed
more than an idle dream.

A two-room house on a 40-acre farm at Whitney, Idaho, was the al-
most ideal home in which I grew up. My parents, required to be
frugal, were industrious, and the love of God that was in their hearts
overflowed into their life. They sincerely appreciated the opportunity of
parenthood and they really worked hard to generate in their eleven
children (I was the oldest) habits of honesty, industry, and "doing
your job," whatever it might be. The idea that each of us, besides being
an individual, was a member of a social unit — the family — was so deeply
ingrained that as a family, as the roadside posters came to say, we
sang together, played together, prayed together, worked together and
stayed together. We were encouraged to bring our friends home with
us too, for singing or popping corn, and Mother had a way of always
making them welcome as part of the group.

I drove a team when I was four years old and not many years after
this I was riding horses to herd cattle. I learned early to milk cows;
we had seventeen Holsteins. This became, and remained, a major re-
sponsibility during my growing years — this and digging potatoes and
sugar beets, shocking grain, putting up hay and doing all the other
chores that feU to the oldest boy on a farm.

When I was fourteen, my father was called on a two-year mission
for the Church. I remember how proud he was because like all good
Mormons, he looked on this as such a great honor that he was willing
to go to distant communities, or even out of the country to acquaint
people with Mormon beliefs. Since the missionaries support themselves
on these ventures, real sacrifices are often involved. To make it pos-
sible, father sold the "dry farm, 5 ' and rented out the cash crops part of
the farm, leaving my mother and the children to manage the hay and
pastureland and care for the dairy herd. With the help of my younger
brothers, I took over most of the responsibilities of the farm. Father's
absence was a sacrifice for all of us, and especially for my mother,
but we accepted and profited by it.

When I was sixteen, a neighbor gave me the job of thinning a full
acre of beets. This was considered a large day's work even for an ex-
perienced adult farmhand; it was back-breaking, done in a bent-over
position, using a wide bladed hoe on a handle about eight inches long.
I started at sunup. When the sun went down that night, I was dead
tired, but the full acre was thinned. My employer was so surprised —

l6 CROSS FIRE

he told me later that he had expected the job to take a couple of days
— that he gave me two five-dollar gold pieces and two silver dollars.
Never before, nor since, have I felt quite so wealthy — nor quite so
sure that I was the physical equal of any living man.

Like most farm boys, I grew up believing that the willingness and
ability to work is the basic ingredient of successful farming. Hard, in-
telligent work is the key. Use it, and your chances for success are good.
As an adult, this principle deepened into one of the mainsprings of my
life.

Not that it was all work and no play on our farm. We played basket-
ball and baseball, and we went swimming, ice skating, and horseback
riding. And we did things that to a boy were half work and half play,
like trapping muskrats and rounding up cattle in the mountains. I
loved animals, especially horses, and usually managed to have my own
riding horse. One special delight was going with my parents or friends
on camping, fishing, and hunting trips. Such peace and inspiration
came while on these trips and marveling at the handiwork of God in
His creation!

There was school, of course. I began grade school at the age of
eight, finished at fourteen, large for my age, and feeling totally edu-
cated. To one grade-school teacher, (she was my great-aunt) I am es-
pecially indebted because of the way she managed to impress upon us
the importance of education, the means of obtaining it, and the value
of planning our future, not just drifting.

And our reading; I dearly loved to read. Our opportunities were
limited more by time than by desire or the availability of material. On
the farm, the hours of work were long. Only stormy days, Sundays,
and evenings provided precious moments for the adventures of litera-
ture. But maybe this deepened our appreciation.

My father sometimes selected a passage from a magazine, a book,
or a newspaper and asked one of us to read it aloud. We also read the
Scriptures aloud to the family and silently in private. And during the
two years of Father's mission, Mother often gathered her brood to-
gether and read to us, especially from Church books.

On graduation from the eighth grade, I recalled, my grandparents
gave me a two-volume set, Little Visits with Great Americans by Orison
Marden, which I thumbed until it was dog-eared. About this time, I
also found fascination in a Life of Benjamin Franklin, During high
school, Tolstoy's What Men Live By and Where Love Is, There God
Is Also, and Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress stirred me.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 17

High school! How one's horizon broadens, how one grows in body,
strength, and mind during those awakening years!

I rode horseback three miles each way to get to high school and in
bad weather it was a problem sometimes to make my eight o'clock
class on time. Like others, I often missed school to help on the farm,
especially in the fall, until after harvest, and in the spring, during
planting season.

The one man other than my father who made the most lasting im-
pression was an uncle, Serge B. Benson. He taught me in three different
classes — but above all, he taught me lessons in moral, physical, and in-
tellectual courage that I have tried to apply in later life. He reinforced
my parents' emphasis on honesty, on standing by the truth at all costs.

Sometimes the cost came high.

One day in the middle of an important examination in high school,
the point of my lead pencil broke. In those days, we used pocket
knives to sharpen our pencils. I had forgotten my penknife, and turned
to ask a neighbor for his. The teacher saw this; he accused me of
cheating. When I tried to explain, he gave me a tongue-lashing for
lying; worse, he forbade me to play on the basketball team in the up-
coming big game.

I could see that the more I protested the angrier he seemed to be-
come. But, again and again, I stubbornly told what had happened.
Even when the coach pleaded my cause, the teacher refused to budge.
The disgrace was almost more than I could bear. Then, just minutes
before the game, he had a change of heart, and I was permitted to play.
But there was no joy in it. We lost the game; and though that hurt,
by far the deeper pain was being branded a cheat and a liar.

Looking back, I know that lesson was God-sent. Character is shaped
in just such crucibles.

My parents believed me; they were understanding and encouraging.
Supported by them, Uncle Serge's lessons in courage, and a clear con-
science, I began to realize that when you are at peace with your Maker
you can, if not ignore human criticism, at least rise above it.

And I learned something else — the importance of avoiding even the
appearance of evil. Though I was innocent, circumstance made me
look guilty. Since this could so easily be true in many of life's situa-
tions, I made a resolution to keep even the appearance of my actions
above question, as far as possible. And it struck me, too, that if this
injustice happened to me, it could happen to others, and I must not
judge their actions simply on appearances.

l8 CROSS FIRE

As I sat in the quiet room in the Biltmore at 4 a.m., these incidents
from my background were in my mind, and I thought I knew why. It
was because they had really played a part in my decision that Mon-
day afternoon in the Eisenhower headquarters. Take the concept of free-
dom, for example. Mormons believe that freedom is more than a nice
idea, that it is a God-given, eternal principle vouchsafed to us under
the Constitution, a principle to be continually guarded as something
more precious than life itself. Being a Mormon farmer made me even
more freedom conscious because farm people just naturally suspect any-
thing that might threaten their independence. They learn to stand on
their own feet and make their own decisions.

I had acquired very firm ideas on the importance of freedom, self-
reliance, and group self-help after childhood, too.

In 1929, I became agricultural agent for Franklin County, Idaho,
the third agent in the county's history. Working with farmers to im-
prove dairy operations, I helped set up herd testing associations, and
these associations played a major role in increasing production and prof-
its.

In the first year, I organized agricultural outlook meetings in six
communities attended by hundreds of farmers; helped map a number of
farms, working out crop and livestock programs; and persuaded the
county to set aside a small appropriation to purchase sprayers to com-
bat the noxious weeds which were a severe problem.

During the second year we enrolled about 400 boys and girls in 4-H
Club work — a tenfold increase over the year before. We organized
Franklin County's first 4-H Club fair and over 4000 persons turned
out to see it.

We promoted cooperative marketing of livestock and helped form the
Franklin County Grain Growers Association which marketed 80 per
cent of the county's wheat in 1930.

Nothing that I have done in agriculture ever gave me more solid
satisfaction than working with rural people as a county agent; helping
boys and girls grow up to be good farmers and good citizens; assist-
ing neighbors to improve their fields, their livestock, their marketing,
and their homes. There is no better way to learn what farm people
really think, what they want, what are their ideals, aspirations, and
needs than by that kind of work. From one angle, at least, I told
myself, I might have something to bring to the Cabinet.

It was long after four and I was finally sleepy. I got back into bed
to catch another hour or two of sleep before it would be time to get up.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER ig

On my return to Salt Lake City that day a telegram was delivered.
It read:

HEARTIEST CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR DESIGNATION TO BE SEC-
RETARY OE AGRICULTURE IN THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION. I AS-
SURE YOU OF MY COMPLETE COOPERATION IN TURNING OVER
THIS OFFICE IN THE MANNER MOST CONVENIENT TO YOU AND
TO THE GREATEST ADVANTAGE TO THE PUBLIC.

CHARLES F. BRANNAN
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE

This was one of a deluge of messages and telephone calls that came
all the way from Canada, Mexico, and England, some 2000 telegrams
and about the same number of letters within two days. These were
almost unbelievable to me — and not a little frightening. So many ex-
pected so much.

Invitations to speak also poured in from all parts of the nation. I
declined to consider any until after the inauguration.

To avoid being completely swamped, I got in touch with Fred W.
Babbel, a young man who had gone to Europe with me in 1946 on a
relief mission for the Church, and asked him to help handle the mail
and make travel arrangements for an extensive, unofficial tour of the
United States.

From morning till night the days began to grow in ferment with a
bubbling mixture of new and old duties. A story in the Farm Journal
by Paul Friggens caught the picture: "At Benson's Salt Lake office, I
walked in with an FBI man," he wrote. "The new Secretary of Agri-
culture and Mormon Church leader had other urgent callers — a Ger-
man immigrant girl and a Mormon boy to be married." Writers and
photographers from Time, Life, U. S. News & World Report, among
others, wanted interviews and photographs.

The reporters kept trying to discover what changes I had in mind.
Actually I had no plans yet. Even if I had, I wouldn't have elaborated
them before taking office. Quizzed about price supports, I replied,
"Properly used, I favor farm price support, but at what level I'm not
prepared to say." Because of my background in cooperatives, I was
asked how I felt about the taxing of farm co-op dividends before they
are distributed, a hot question for many years. I ducked it: "I haven't
anything to say on that at this time."

One pledge I did make. "There isn't any Benson farm plan and there
isn't going to be any." Our policies would not be mine alone but those
of the Administration. Moreover, they would be arrived at only after

20 CROSS FIRE

much study by many people representing all phases of agriculture. It
was my firm belief that this was not the case with the "Brannan
Plan. 5 ' 1

In speculating, the press played up sentences from a speech I had
made in Logan, Utah, in 1951 : "Every young man requires the spur
of insecurity to force him to do his best. We must take a stand against
undue government paternalism." What, they asked, did this mean in
terms of government aid to agriculture?

They'd just have to speculate.

My own mind was starting to be saturated with speculation. The
more I thought about it, the bigger the job ahead seemed to grow.

The "Office" of Agriculture as originally set up would never have
impressed anyone. It has been described as a congressional appropria-
tion of about $1000 to collect seeds and gather a few statistics. On
May 15, 1862, during the Administration of Abraham Lincoln, the De-
partment of Agriculture was created by an act of Congress. The whole
"Department" was housed in a few basement rooms of the old Patent
Office Building. The first Commissioner of Agriculture, a man named
Isaac Newton — not the Isaac Newton — had a staff consisting mainly of
one botanist, one entomologist, one chemist, and one statistician. But it
was ample.

The USDA I would administer had grown. It housed part of its
employees (about one-tenth) in one of the largest office buildings in
the world, the combined Administration and South Buildings in Wash-
ington, D.C., containing 5000 rooms and eight miles of corridors. Only
one government building and perhaps two private office buildings were
bigger— the Pentagon in Washington, Chicago's Merchandise Mart, and
the Empire State Building in New York.

My staff, consisting of some 78,000 full-time and part-time em-
ployees, would be scattered in 10,000 locations throughout the con-
tinental United States, with about 2000 in U.S. territories and pos-
sessions and the rest in more than 50 countries around the world. For a
man who disliked Big Government, I was certainly going to head up
a Big Department; one made up of many plots, well plowed up and
stamped around on, and ringed with political barbed wire.

1 Secretary Brannan had proposed that at least ten important farm commodities
should have a government-supported price sufficient to keep the purchasing power
of farm cash income up to a recent ten-year average. If the market prices of these
ten commodities fell below the indicated level, the difference in price would be
made up by cash payments from the U. S. Treasury directly to farmers. Most farmers
and farm organizations, as well as the Congress, opposed the plan.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 21

Commissioner Newton had to supervise the food eaten by President
Lincoln to make sure it wasn't poisoned. I would have to struggle with
the proper use of chemicals in agriculture to maintain our food supply
as the safest, cleanest, and most wholesome in the world for all our
citizens of whom there were 160,000,000 in the beginning, 1953;
180,000,000 in i960.

Mine would be the primary responsibility for keeping our farmers
the best informed and most productive in the world.

As the man in charge of the nation's largest money-lending agency,
the Commodity Credit Corporation, I would be the biggest butter,
cheese, and dried-milk man in the country — as well as the biggest
dealer in grain, cotton, and a lot of other commodities.

I would be responsible for the most extensive electrification project
and for the biggest soil, water, and timber conservation operation in
history; for protecting the nation against invasion by insect pests and
diseases; for inspecting meat, insuring crops, grading and classing com-
modities; and a long list of other operations.

Mine would be the ultimate and complete responsibility for ef-
ficiency and effectiveness of all Department activities. I could delegate
authority to bureau chiefs and staff offices; but the final credit or blame
would end up on my doorstep. As to all public officials, the words of
the plaintive sign would apply, "When I'm right nobody remembers;
when Fm wrong nobody forgets."

Eight days after accepting Ike's invitation to join his team, armed with
a long list of about 150 persons to consult, I started on a privately
financed, 20-day trip, which took me to all sections of the United
States. My list included farmers, commodity experts, processors, people
from the land-grant colleges and universities, agricultural economists,
marketing experts, leaders of the farm organizations — a complete cross
section of agriculture, including wholesaling and retailing.

To this basic list the names of influential and well-informed local
persons were added by community leaders to provide an even wider
cross section.

On December 2, 1952, I set off for California. Why California?
Because it produces the most farm products, has the highest farm cash
income, grows more diversified crops than any other state, leads the
nation in fruits and vegetables, poultry, cattle slaughter, beef produc-
tion, and output of milk per cow, and ranks high in cotton produc-
tion. California is the foremost agricultural state in the nation.

22 CROSS FIRE

Besides, I was famttiar with the West Coast and its leaders; also,
this would leave more time for planning an itinerary.

In Los Angeles I talked with representatives of the Farm Bureau
and the Grange, the two biggest and most influential farm organiza-
tions in the state; with the president and general manager of Sun-
kist; with poultry producers and processors; dairymen and growers of
vegetables, walnuts, grapes, other specialty crops, and cotton.

The meetings began at 8 a.m. and ran until late afternoon, each inter-
view lasting about fifteen minutes to half an hour. I took notes myself
in longhand and I still have the scribbled pages in my files. After the
name of each person interviewed, I scrawled four or five sentences
or key phrases summarizing our conversation.

Poultry wants no supports. Research and information needed. Dairy
people worried about high butter supports. OK. to support basic crops
to prevent disaster, but not to guarantee profit.

This first day of interviews brought out some vehement opinions.
One farmer said: "Fve never taken one thin dime of government money.
I don't believe in it. I returned the checks the government sent me and
I'll mail you the correspondence to prove it/' I told him he didn't have
to prove it.

From Los Angeles I went to San Francisco, to Portland, Oregon,
then back to Salt Lake City for a day.

My crop of notes continued to grow. After the name of a leading
research expert: Make Ag research more localized. Decisions on what
field stations should do, too often made in Washington — by men who
don't know local situation. Research projects not suited to needs of
state.

From a prominent authority on agricultural credit: Make complete
reorganization of USDA along lines of Hoover report.

From a fruit producer: Examine into Federal Marketing Order pro-
cedure as means of handling farm marketing problems.

From a cotton industry spokesman: Growers can't expect high sup-
ports to continue unless they control production. Flexible supports safest.
Don't guarantee everybody a profit to save marginal producers.

Some names cropped up again and again as potential members of our
staff. For example, in many places I heard praise for J. Earl Coke,
Director of Extension for California.

Others suggested as possible staff members or of an Agricultural
Advisory Commission included Chester Davis of AAA fame, W. L Myers,
Dean of Agriculture at Cornell University, John H. Davis of the

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 2£

cooperative movement, Rhea Blake of the Cotton Council, and Ear]
Butz, an agricultural economist at Purdue University.

Sunday, December 7, home again in Salt Lake City, the first leg ol
my trip was complete. Next day I finished my work at the Church
office. Then, after telephoning Secretary Brannan, asking him to meet
with Karl Butler to give him organization charts and office layouts of
the Department, I boarded a plane for Chicago, accompanied by Fred
Babbel. Thus began the second and longer leg.

Babbel, Butler, and I spent two meeting-full days at the Palmer
House in Chicago, talking, mostly about the livestock situation, to peo-
ple from Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Min-
nesota. Having secretarial help from Babbel, I no longer needed to make
longhand notes. Butler, who had been made available to me by his
firm, worked largely on arranging and organizing the meetings.

Then it was on to New York City for two days of conferences at
the Biltmore with some 35 individuals from all over the Northeast.
Among those consulted was Senator Robert A. Taft.

I had met Senator Taft several times. My middle name is Taft and
the Senator and I had a common relative several generations back; my
great-great-grandmother was a Taft. But I didn't know him intimately.
Some of the Senator's friends arranged our meeting in New York.

A lot of adjectives beginning with "b" describe Bob Taft. He was big,
balding, bony, bespectacled — and brainy; and I admired him more
than any other man in political life.

My long-time regard for the Senator had been heightened by his
wholehearted acceptance of the will of the delegates at the Republican
Convention in June when they had passed him by in favor of Eisen-
hower. He was that rare specimen — a dogged, dedicated bulldog fighter
of character who knew how to lose. He probably knew more about
the problems confronting the nation than any other man of his time.
Solid, courageous, forthright, he was in my book the one and only
"Mr. Republican."

In his rather professorial way, accentuated by his flat nasal voice
and toothy smile, he told me how pleased he was at my appointment.
Then he got right down to business. "The farm program " he said,
"is steeped in politics. That's why it is so difficult to reach sound
economic solutions to the farmer's economic troubles. Your job will
be to divorce the program from partisan politics."

I wish he had shown me how.

There was a rumor that I had been named to the Cabinet at Taft's

24 CROSS FIRE

behest. I was a little curious myself. The Senator had been quoted as
having said that he "had joined" in recommending me but also that "I
can't claim him as my recommendation."

Oddly, I can't answer the question even now. Other than what Karl
Butler and Milton Eisenhower had said, I did not know, and I stifled my
curiosity by making no effort to find out at this time or any other
time, just what part Senator Taft had in my appointment. Anyway,
I'm sure that what mattered more to him than our distant blood ties
in the past was our political and philosophical kinship at the present.

Thus, I found that it is possible for a man to be nominated and
appointed as a Cabinet officer without ever knowing exactly who his
chief sponsors were. In my case, it seems clear that the backing of
Senator Taft, Milton Eisenhower, and possibly Governor Dewey all
contributed — their opinions counting heavily with the President. But
the really important fact was that the President-elect had made it clear
that he wanted me.

I wanted to confer also, if I could, with ex-President Herbert Hoover
and General Douglas MacArthur. I telephoned both of them at their
respective apartments in the Towers of the Waldorf-Astoria in New
York and asked if I might pay my respects.

This was my first meeting with Mr. Hoover, though I later became
quite well acquainted with him. I don't believe anyone could really
know Hoover without recognizing him as a truly great American. I was
pleased to learn later of the strong bond of respect and affection be-
tween Hoover and Eisenhower. A heavy-set man, of more than average
height, Hoover at seventy-eight still conveyed an impression of great
strength — like one of the sturdy trees in my beloved West. Since he was
an outstanding student of government structure, I brought up the sub-
ject of the reorganization of the USDA, telling him that I wanted to
streamline the agencies and make them more responsive to local needs.
He was encouraging and offered to help in any way he could. The
awesome ranginess of his mind impressed me; it was like a long arm
with which he could reach out, pick up, and weigh almost any subject
in the whole area of government.

If Hoover was an oak, MacArthur was an eagle. Majestic in bearing,
direct and piercing in facial expression, he was about the youngest
seventy-two-year-old I have ever met. Receiving me with a very warm,
vigorous handclasp, he was, in a moment, expressing feelingly his love
for the United States and what it stands for, and his conviction of
the immense values of free enterprise and the dangers of big govern-

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 25

ment. "If I can ever be of service to you," he said, "just pick up the
phone. I'll come to Washington or go anywhere I can to help you."

Sometimes, one hears such words and doubts them. But MacArthur
and Hoover meant what they said.

These are two of the great men of this century. Circumstances and
the actions of lesser men have prevented their receiving the full rec-
ognition which was their due, but history will be wiser than their
contemporaries.

I had a good talk also with the late Victor Emanuel, Karl Butler's
boss, the president of the AVCO Corp. He was eminently practical.
"If you want to get legislation through Congress keep close to Taft,
George, and Russell in the Senate, and to Joe Martin in the House.
Ask them to lunch in the Department or on the Hill. Seek them out
occasionally, and other leaders in Congress, too. Cultivate the chairmen
of the Agriculture Committees. Talk with them first before you intro-
duce legislation. Your public relations and liaison with Congress must
be tops. When a Senator calls, don't brush him off and ask a sub-
ordinate to take care of him."

This seems like good advice from a man who had many dealings
with Congressmen.

Saturday morning Babbel, Butler, and I left for Washington on the
8 o'clock plane. We established headquarters at the Statler Hotel.

While at the Old State Department Building where I had gone for a
conference with Milton Eisenhower, I met Sherman Adams, slated to
be "the assistant to the President." The quiet efficiency of this slight,
brisk, gray-haired, unsmiling former Governor of New Hampshire im-
mediately impressed me.

With the help of friends, I had arranged to meet as many Senators
and Congressmen in Washington as I conveniently could. On Monday,
December 15, 1 had appointments with Senators Frank Carlson, George
D, Aiken, Styles Bridges, Walter F. George, and Arthur V, Watkins;
and with Representatives H. Carl Andersen, August H. Andresen,
Clifford R. Hope, Harold D. Cooley, and John Phillips. Except for
Senator George and Congressman Cooley, all were Republicans. All
were powerful figures in the Congress, and several were members of
agricultural committees.

That same day I had an hour with Secretary Brannan during which
he turned over to me organization charts and a compilation of the
current budget for the Department.

This, my only meeting with Secretary Brannan before taking office,

26 CROSS FIRE

was a rather brief encounter, and as might have been expected some-
what strained. I asked Brannan if one of my representatives could come
into the Department to make advance preparations for the changeover,
and he agreed to provide office space and whatever secretarial help
was necessary.

Out of this meeting with Brannan came a somewhat painful lesson
in the hard facts of political life. In talking about the perquisites of
the job, we got on to the subject of the car and chauffeur provided
for the use of each Cabinet member. Innocently, I inquired whether the
car could be used for family transportation or if it should properly be
reserved for the Secretary alone. I really wanted to know.

Someone must have given a rather prejudiced account of this part
of our private conversation to Drew Pearson because shortly thereafter
he ran an item in his column intimating that I was in the job for all
I could get. In politics, I began to see, it helps to have a hide like an
elephant.

That was how the trip went. Meeting after meeting, in city after
city, from early morning until late evening or until time to catch a
train or plane. I did far more listening than talking. Many of those
interviewed I knew from Go-op Council Days, and this helped im-
measurably in arranging down-to-earth discussions.

From Washington I went to Atlanta where I began the day by break-
fasting with Senator Richard B. Russell, long a powerhouse in agri-
cultural legislation. A cementing bond was the fact that each of us had
a good friend in D. W. Brooks., an agricultural leader in Georgia.

One of the problems to be faced immediately on taking office would
be whether or not to recommend renewal of the International Wheat
Agreement. Under this arrangement the wheat surplus countries such
as the U.S., Canada, Argentina, and Australia, sold to the wheat-short
countries predetermined quantities at stipulated prices. The U.S. gov-
ernment was subsidizing part of the cost of these sales. I wanted partic-
ularly to get Senator RusselPs views on whether the Agreement should
be continued.

"It costs too much, the losses are too heavy," he said. He insisted
that the Agreement should be not only revised, but rebudgeted. The
treaty, he pointed out, was handled in the Senate by the Foreign
Relations Committee as though it were State Department business, but
the losses were assessed against the appropriation of the USDA. This
charged it up as an agricultural expense when it was really a tool
of our foreign policy.

Senator Russell urged me to move rapidly on the reorganization

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 27

of the Department. As for the Agricultural Advisory Commission, which
the President had pledged to set up, Russell said, "Don't give it
statutory authority — make it nebulous, keep it informed, but make sure
it remains advisory"

This, I might say, was one of the highlights of the trip. I was deeply
impressed with Senator Russell's interest in agriculture, and with his
definite opinions.

From Atlanta I went to Dallas for conferences with some fifty
individuals, and from Dallas to Kansas City. Here I began a full
schedule (I saw 65 people) by having breakfast with True D. Morse,
Chairman of the Board of Doane Agricultural Service, Inc. Morse
was a quiet-spoken, kindly, deeply-religious gentleman with a vast fund
of information derived from his background. Born and brought up on a
farm, Morse had been a county official of the Farm Bureau and later
worked for an agricultural extension service as a specialist in agricultural
economics and marketing. He had studied law and been admitted
to the Missouri Bar. He reminded me that we had met in Chicago
in 1948 while he was Chairman of the National Farm Committee
for Dewey and Warren.

I invited Morse to serve as Under Secretary of Agriculture, subject,
of course, to Eisenhower's approval.

Then, it was back to the nation's capital for more conferences,
including a meeting with the new Director-designate of the Budget,
Joseph M. Dodge.

On Saturday, December 20, I worked on the membership of the
Interim Agricultural Advisory Commission, and Monday, tired and
weary for lack of sleep, but bursting with information, Babbel and I
returned to Salt Lake City for Christmas at home.

Setting Up Shop— I

It was a real home-coming for the Bensons. But we knew it would be
our last family Christmas for years, and maybe forever, in our home
on Harvard Avenue; so it was a kind of leave-taking to Salt Lake City,
too.

The house your children grow up in becomes almost a part of you.
Our house had a unique beauty. Of Norman design, with a central
turret and several gables, arched windows and a distinctive pitched
roof, white walls strikingly set off by deep green shrubbery and a
broad lawn, it was attractive enough to be one of the residences pointed
out to sightseers.

But it was the memory of those bright years within the white walls
during which Flora and I had seen our family grow and flourish that
made our home so dear. Shortly after we had moved in, President
David O. McKay had dedicated it at our request, consecrating to the
service of God the home and all who lived there, and asking His
blessing on everyone and everything associated with it. There was about
the place an aura of peace and serenity. We felt God had blessed it.

Except for Reed, an Air Force chaplain on active duty, all the
children were home for Christmas: Mark, Barbara, Beverly, Bonnie,
and Beth.

We had a big fir tree in the front window, which the children had
picked out and trimmed. They had decorated the house with holly
and mistletoe and baked delicious cakes and cookies, enough to feed a
small army to celebrate the commemoration of the greatest event in
human history.

On Christmas Eve we gathered in a family circle to read Dickens'

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 29

A Christmas Carol and St. Luke's wonderful recounting of the Savior's
birth. Then Barbara went to the piano and we clustered around for
carols and hymns; and the children's voices were so clear and sweet
and their faces so full of love and joy that Flora and I surprised each
other blinking back a tear or two. Then, after the children set up a
row of chairs, and hung stockings over the backs, we scooted them off
to bed.

Flora and I talked — about the future and about the past — until
we knew they were safely asleep. And then as millions of other parents
were doing all over the country, we filled the children's stockings
with candy, nuts, and fruit, laid the presents from Santa on and under
the chairs and piled the family gifts and those from relatives and
friends beneath the tree. At last, we too, went to sleep.

It was one month to the day since General Eisenhower had an-
nounced that he wanted me in his Cabinet.

At about 5 : 30 in the morning, Flora and I, waking to excited stirrings
and whisperings, got up and permitted the youngsters a quick look into
the living room before Flora herded all of us into the kitchen for a glass
of milk and a bun. This is our family custom. We like to start all holidays
with a light breakfast, eaten together as a family. Then we lined up in
the kitchen, Beth, the littlest one, seven and quivering with anticipa-
tion, first, and Flora and I last. We marched single file into the living
room. We opened the presents and toys from Santa first; then we all
sat on the floor and took turns unwrapping and admiring the family
gifts.

Later we went to service in the chapel, returning home for Christ-
mas dinner in the early afternoon.

It was just an ordinary Christmas, if peace and joy can ever be called
ordinary. Yet, happy as it was, our thoughts every now and then
saddened as we looked about this true home. With all our hearts,
we wished we could keep it, rent it out, have it to return to some
day; but we had decided it would be best for the whole family to
buy a house in Washington. We'd have to sell to raise cash for a down
payment. It was a good-by and we knew it.

Actually, we had little enough time to indulge in nostalgia. Besides
the constant pressure of interviews, receiving and sending messages,
and making plans for a new job, we had a very important piece of
family business coming up. Our son, Mark, and his fiancee, Lela Wing,
were to be married on December 30 — the first wedding of one of our
six children. From Christmas until the wedding, the days were ex-

g CROSS FIRE

tremely busy both at the office and at home, but at night we re-
laxed as much as possible in family gatherings at home and at a few
social functions outside.

Mark and Lela were joined in wedlock by me in one of the Salt Lake
Temple's sealing rooms in the presence of families, relatives, and a few
friends, and I feel sure that none of us will ever quite forget the joy and
solemnity of the event. It was a marriage consummated for eternity,
according to the Mormon faith, not only for this life but for the life
to come.

Meantime, we were setting up shop.

On Christmas Eve, the President-elect announced our choice of
True D. Morse. A couple of days after Christmas, he named the men
who were to constitute the Interim Agricultural Advisory Commission. 1

I had personally picked these men; each an expert in his field. This
was a prompt beginning in fulfillment of the General's campaign
pledge to appoint a bipartisan commission to advise the Secretary of
Agriculture on farm policy and to review from time to time policy,
accomplishments, and needs. Later this group was made formal as a
permanent committee with a rotating membership of eighteen, at least
twelve of whom were always full-time farmers.

The committee had a unique and valuable function. I could not
take all my problems to the people, nor make a trip through the
country every time to discover theirs or find answers to important
questions, but these advisers gave me the benefit of a wide range of
experience. 2

The committee included not only farmers and farm organization
officers, but land-grant college personnel, processors, heads of some
important food firms, even a banker. We wanted it that way because
agriculture today is more than producing crops on a farm. The prob-
lems of agriculture extend all the way through the food industry. To
me a broadly based committee made good sense; but it aroused some
grumbling by a few shortsighted men of farm groups and some political
opportunists who either believed or pretended there was no room for
anybody but full-time farmers. These were the first rumblings we heard,
a faint whisper of thunder on the left.

On January 4, I returned to Washington. In temporary quarters in
the World Center Building, a few assistants, serving without compensa-

1 See Appendix A.

2 Two of the original appointees, John H. Davis and Romeo E. Short, later joined
my staff.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 31

tion, and I worked from 7:30 in the morning until 10 or 11 o'clock at '
night — six days a week. Most of my day was spent interviewing on a
15-minute schedule. It didn't seem possible that so many people could
have so much business with a government official before he took of-
fice.

I usually brought lunch with me, a sandwich slapped together be-
fore coming to work. This was mostly to save time, but partly to save
money. Whoever coined the phrase featured in some labor and farm
organization publications about the new President's Cabinet consisting
of "nine millionaires and a plumber" (presumably Secretary of Labor
Martin P. Durkin) didn't know what he was talking about — and that's
putting it more mildly than he deserves. Certainly I didn't fit in either
category. I was no plumber, but I was closer to plumber than mil-
lionaire.

The coming of a new Administration to Washington must be the
nearest existing approach to political perpetual motion. You feel a little
like a juggler riding a bicycle, spinning a plate on the end of a long
stick balanced on his forehead and simultaneously keeping six balls in
the air.

The interviewing was interrupted by three days of meetings at the
University of Maryland, just outside Washington, with the Advisory
Commission. Next I flew to Chicago for a meeting with the Republican
Farm Council.

Setting up shop also meant finding the right men. The selection of
Dr. Don Paarlberg of the Agricultural Economics Department of
Purdue University as my economic adviser was announced January
10. Next, the President-elect announced J. Earl Coke as Assistant
Secretary, John H. Davis as president of the Commodity Credit Cor-
poration, and Clarence M. Ferguson, director of Ohio Extension Serv-
ice, as administrator of the Extension Service. These were top-notch
men, hand-picked, experienced in agriculture and well trained for their
new jobs.

Unlike many incoming Presidents who select not only their Cabinets,
but the Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries, thereby paying
off political debts, General Eisenhower gave me a completely free
hand. He neither suggested any of my assistants, nor did he question
a single choice. Of course, the top officials of the USDA had to be
presented by the President to the Senate for confirmation. But he
seemed to have full confidence in those I wanted, and I responded
by choosing my team prayerfully and carefully, asking God to give me a
spirit of discernment.

32 GROSS FIRE

Coke and Ferguson I didn't know at all. Here is how they were
chosen. Because the USDA and the land-grant schools (Michigan State,
Pennsylvania State, Iowa State, etc.) work closely together on re-
search and extension programs, I wanted to get at least one man from
the colleges. I also planned a change in the leadership of the Extension
Service, relieving the then aging Director, M. L. Wilson. Accordingly,
telegrams went to many presidents and Deans of Agriculture of
the land-grant colleges and universities asking them to list the three
top state directors of Extension in the United States. Coke and Ferguson
were on all of these lists.

John H. Davis was the only top-level appointee I knew well; years
before I had chosen him to succeed me as Executive Secretary of the
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.

To one assistant, I gave the difficult and painful task of interviewing
key personnel in the Department of Agriculture. He became known,
more or less facetiously, as Benson's "hatchet man." Obviously, some of
the employees most closely associated with my predecessor would have
to be transferred or removed to make place for my own personal
assistants. Where feasible, we wanted to help these employees transfer
to other jobs in the Department. Also I wanted to tighten up the
administration of the Department, get rid of dead wood, and eliminate
the semi-political activities of some of the agencies. But I intended
neither to countenance wholesale firings nor to open up a host of
political jobs. The hatchet man leaned over backwards to be fair.

Maybe you've wondered how an ordinary man, appointed to office
in Washington, finds out just what the detailed duties of his job are?
Of how to get to and go through the Inauguration? Of all the hundred
and one details that I, like everyone else, always took for granted?

Well, the answer is simple. People tell him.

In December, I received several telegrams from Eisenhower head-
quarters about plans for the Inauguration. One message inviting me
to the Inaugural Ball pointed out that boxes at the ball were going
fast at three hundred dollars each. Because of my position, I learned,
I could have more than one box if I wished. Frankly, I was shocked.
Not that I had any opposition to the idea of the Ball or even to the
box; it was just that three hundred dollars are not easy to come by.
Eventually we decided against renting a box.

Another telegram requested attendance at a pre-Inauguration meet-
ing of the Eisenhower Cabinet. On January 12, 1953, therefore, the
President-elect's as yet unofficial family gathered for luncheon in the

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 33

green-carpeted, gray-walled South Room of the Commodore Hotel in
New York. So far as I can discover, this was the first such full-dress
meeting ever held by a President-elect and his Cabinet.

In the few moments before the luncheon, as the General and I ex-
changed a comment or two about the spiritual side of the Great Cru-
sade, I asked him whether it might not be well, in view of our grave re-
sponsibilities, to begin our Cabinet meetings with prayer. While he
seemed to find the thought interesting, he didn't commit himself.

We had all gathered around the U-shaped luncheon table and were
waiting for our host to invite us to be seated when Eisenhower began
to talk quietly about the weight of our responsibilities and our need for
divine guidance. Then, looking at me — "I am therefore asking our
Secretary of Agriculture to open this meeting of the Cabinet with
prayer."

Those who knew him well could have told me that this was a typical
Ike reaction: propose something to him and you may suddenly find
yourself elected to do it.

Fortunately, I was able to comply readily enough.

Then we sat in leather armchairs around the table and looked one
another over. We knew something about one another from what we had
read and been told. We quickly learned more as we talked and listened
and observed. This group was to be, hopefully, the Eisenhower team,
some of them long eminent in U.S. and world affairs, others just emerg-
ing into prominence. It seemed strange and unreal that a farmer from
Idaho and Utah should be among them. Again I asked myself: What
am 7 doing here? Others came to ask the question soon enough.

Flanking the sixty-two-year-old President-elect were the youngest and
oldest members: Richard M. Nixon, just turned forty a few days be-
fore, boyish, square-jawed, energetic, and intensely earnest; and John
Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, sixty-four, a leonine figure with his
large head, massive shoulders, and strong body; a grave, slow-speaking,
austere, distinguished-looking statesman.

I found myself meeting the calm, self-confident gaze of George M.
Humphrey, Treasury. I sized him up, this Ohio Tycoon, as a warm,
friendly, outgoing, extremely persuasive personality. It's said that when
the sixty-two-year-old Humphrey walked into the room for his first
meeting with Eisenhower, the General looked at Humphrey's receded
hairline and quipped, "George, I see you comb your hair just the way
I do." As chairman of the board of the M. A. Hanna Company of
Cleveland, Ohio, with interests in ore, coal, banking, shipping, steel,

34 CROSS FIRE

coffee, oil, and natural gas, Humphrey had a broad and sure knowledge
of the nation's economy.

Charles E. Wilson, Defense, former president of General Motors,
was the same age as Humphrey. They were alike in other ways, too.
Open-faced, blue-eyed, white-haired, exuding friendliness and cheer-
ful self-confidence, Wilson appeared and acted what he was — one of
America's top business executives. He had started out as an electrical
engineer and some forty years before had designed Westinghouse's first
automobile self-starter.

Slated to be Secretary of Commerce was Sinclair Weeks, a tall,
erect, serious-faced sixty, looking the part of a New England banker
and financier, which he was. He had served briefly in the U. S. Senate
in the mid- 1940s and was chairman of the Republican National Finance
Committee.

Herbert Brownell, Jr., forty-eight, quiet but briskly effective, I knew
by reputation as one of the outstanding political campaign managers
in the Republican Party. A Tom Dewey brain-truster who had helped
direct Eisenhower's campaign for the nomination with exquisite skill,
he was the Attorney General-designate.

Martin P. Durkin, head of the Plumber's Union and a vice-
president of the AFL, was Eisenhower's selection for Secretary of Labor.
Senator Taft described the appointment as "incredible." Square-jawed
and serious, saying little, Durkin seemed vaguely uncomfortable, as
though he felt a Democratic labor leader was out of place in this con-
servative gathering from the world of American business and finance.

Arthur E. SummerfieJd of Michigan, the choice for Postmaster Gen-
eral, was the stocky, rather aggressive-looking chairman of the Re-
publican National Committee. For many years he had been president
of one of the nation's largest automobile agencies and was also successful
in real estate, oil, and insurance.

Douglas McKay resigned as Governor of Oregon to serve as Eisen-
hower's Secretary of the Interior.

It seemed a reasonably well-balanced Cabinet. It was business-
oriented, yet it had plenty of political know-how. Dulles, like Weeks, had
served briefly in the Senate. McKay and Summerfield had been in
state politics. Brownell had been in the New York State Assembly. For
Secretary of Labor, Eisenhower had picked a labor leader, a new
departure in this field. He had also broken precedent by naming his
entire Cabinet within a few weeks after the election, thus giving all of us
a chance to get acquainted with our jobs.

Moving smoothly into the business at hand, Eisenhower immediately

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 35

showed himself a past master at running a meeting. Informal, yet al-
ways in control, provoking a good deal of discussion but not letting it
get far off the issue, he was a pleasure to observe.

He read aloud a draft of his Inaugural Address and invited us to
"blue pencil." We all thought the message was wonderful.

We got into a rather long discussion of the detailed program for
Inauguration Day: plans for a luncheon immediately after the oath-
taking and the Inaugural Address; the parade; the festivities. Joseph
McGarraghy, the chairman of the Inauguration Committee, outlined
the day's program. Eisenhower mentioned that the wives and im-
mediate families of all those present were invited to a morning church
service on Inauguration Day.

He was concerned about the comfort of those in the parade. He
wanted the luncheon to be brief— he thought he and Mrs. Eisenhower
could finish in fifteen minutes— so that the marchers would not have
to wait for an hour after the ceremonies at the Capitol before beginning
the parade. Having been in these things before, he recalled, he knew
what it was to stand around waiting on Pennsylvania Avenue on a cold
January day without lunch.

He said, too, that he didn't want those toward the end of the parade
to be disappointed by coming past the reviewing stand in front of the
White House after dark.

Eisenhower also had some questions about the Inaugural Balls. Be-
cause of the heavy demand for tickets and boxes, two balls were to
be held simultaneously, one at the National Armory, the other at George-
town University's new McDonough Gymnasium. Would there be any
distinction in social prestige between these two affairs? Because, if so, he
wanted to spend more time at the less distinguished ball.

The more I saw of this man, the better I liked him.

McGarraghy said there was no difference.

After this session, we visited among ourselves for a while, just getting
better acquainted.

The caliber of the Cabinet really impressed me. These men, it seemed,
had not sought the job for the most part, they had been sought for
the job. Humphrey and Wilson, for example, were stepping down from
salaries of several hundred thousand dollars a year to $22,500. (Later
the salary for members of the Cabinet was raised to $25,000). Dulles,
the chief author of the Japanese treaty, and a former delegate to the
United Nations General Assembly, had more apparent qualifications
for Secretary of State than any man in the country and Eisenhower,
I think, wanted him in the Cabinet probably more than anyone. Even

36 GROSS FIRE

Durkin, the Democrat, was there not because he wanted to be but be-
cause the General wanted him and labor had urged him to accept.

Already the characteristics of the various members were beginning
to stand out. Humphrey and Dulles had begun to assume positions of
leadership, next to Eisenhower. They had done this not by pushing
themselves forward in any way, but simply by the force of their personal-
ities and their penetrating observations. Wilson, too, was a leading
figure, largely because he was outspoken and expressed himself color-
fully. He didn't assess the draft of the Inaugural Address as excellent
or terrific — he said "it flew the flag." Later, talking about trade with
the Communist satellites, he said, "I'm a little old-fashioned. I don't
like to sell firearms to the Indians."

Wilson seemed to prefer dealing in generalities and apparently he
didn't like delving into details.

Herb Brownell, I thought, could recognize a political implication when
it was still no more than a dot on the horizon. Art Summerfield, too,
looked for political implications and in contrast to Wilson, was very
good on details.

The whole Cabinet, I was beginning to see, added up to a talented
and potentially capable committee. They were not supermen, they were
all flesh and blood, but everyone of them was a success in his own
field. Not one was being rescued from political oblivion, or sitting in
the Cabinet simply as a pay-off for campaign endeavors. They were
qualified and they had been selected because of those qualifications.

I liked them all, but on the basis of first impressions I found myself
attracted especially to Humphrey and Summerfield.

The second day of the meeting was devoted largely to talking about
how to end wage and price controls, and about the possibilities for
reducing taxes and achieving a balanced budget.

One comment that I particularly remember showed Eisenhower's at-
titude toward patronage and job seeking.

y/ c Anyone who comes to me asking a favor because he's a relative
or a friend of mine will be ordered out of my office," he said firmly.
"And anybody who comes asking for a job or special consideration
because he was an early supporter of mine will get the same treat-
ment. We are not in office because of personal favors by anyone. We
don't owe any debts to anybody." I made a mental note.

When the press discovered that our meeting had begun with a
prayer, reporters badgered James Hagerty, Eisenhower's press secretary,
so much that he telephoned me next day in Washington, D.C., to see

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 37

if I could provide a copy. They seemed surprised when I reported there
was no copy or even notes.

At Jim's repeated insistence, I reconstructed my thoughts as best I
could and released the following — the only prayer I've ever written out
in all my life.

Our Heavenly and Eternal Father, In deep humility and gratitude we
approach thy holy throne in prayer. We thank thee for this blessed privilege
for we realize, in part at least, our great dependence upon thee.

We are deeply grateful for this glorious land in which we live. We know
it is a land choice above all others — the greatest nation under heaven. We
thank thee for all of our spiritual and material blessings. We thank thee for
liberty — for our free agency, our way of life, and our free institutions.

We acknowledge, gratefully, the unselfish service of those who have pre-
ceded us, especially the founding fathers of this nation. We thank thee for
the glorious Constitution of this land which has been established by noble
men whom thou didst raise up into this very purpose. We praise thy holy
name for the glorious and eternal concepts embodied therein. Help us
ever, we pray thee, to be true and faithful to these great and guiding
principles.

Our Heavenly Father bless, richly, we pray thee, thy son and servant
who has been chosen by the sovereign people of this great nation, to serve
as their Chief Executive. Our Father, wilt thou endow him, and all of us,
with a deep spirit of humility and devotion. We know that without thy
divine help we cannot succeed in the great responsibilities which have been
placed upon us. Sustain us, our Father, through thy divine power.

Bless in a special manner thy servant, our leader, with wisdom, under-
standing, and the inspiration of thy spirit to guide him in his heavy and
all-important duties. Bless him with unbounded energy, health, and strength.
And may he always be blessed with wisdom and a constant spirit of dis-
cernment in his leadership.

Bless those of us whom he has chosen to assist him and to stand at his
side. May we ever uphold his hand and be true to him and to the sacred
trust imposed in us. Wilt thou also bless abundantly the Congress and the
judiciary. May there always be a spirit of unity in the three great branches
of our government.

Heavenly Father, we desire only to do thy will. Forgive us our imperfec-
tions and weaknesses. Guide and direct us as we go forward in our new and
heavy responsibilities. Bless us with a spirit of humility. May we ever be
united in seeking to know thy will and to promote the welfare of the people
of this land and of the world.

We thank thee for thy manifold blessings both material and spiritual.
For this food of which we are about to partake — a further evidence and re-
minder of thy goodness and mercy — we thank thee. Bless and sanctify it to
our nourishment and good. May we use the energy and strength derived
therefrom in helping to achieve thy holy purposes.

We ascribe unto thee the praise, the honor, and the glory for all we
have achieved or may accomplish. Gratefully we dedicate our lives unto

38 CROSS FIRE

thee and to thy service. Guide and direct us in our deliberations today and
always and help us to serve with an eye single to thy glory, we humbly pray
in the worthy name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, our Savior, even so. Amen.

On January 15, 1953, the Senate Committee on Agriculture and
Forestry held a hearing on my qualifications to be Secretary of Agri-
culture.

Under our form of government, the President's appointed officials
run the gauntlet of Senatorial inspection. While a new President's ap-
pointments almost always are approved, the way the hearing is con-
ducted often foreshadows the quality of the political road ahead for a
given official.

The Committee members quizzed me on my farm background, my
experience, and my general philosophy. I answered everything I could as
factually as possible, but I refused to be drawn into specific commit-
ments about what I would do or recommend in hypothetical situations
— what F.D.R. used to call "iffy" questions.

This bothered Senator Milton R. Young, Republican of North Da-
kota, who was a strong advocate of high rigid price supports. Did
my views, he asked, agree with those expressed by General Eisen-
hower during the campaign, to wit: that the prevailing system of rigid
price support at 90 per cent of parity for wheat, cotton, corn, rice,
peanuts, and tobacco would be continued through 1954.

At Kasson, Minnesota, on September 6, 1952, the General had com-
mitted himself.

When the campaign speech was first drafted and reviewed by Milton
Eisenhower, Dr. W. I. Myers, John Bird, an agricultural writer, and
Karl Butler at the Cornell Club in New York, it had been agreed that
the President should come out for flexibility in the support level. A
commitment for rigid 90 per cent supports, it was felt, would result
in great difficulty. Apparently some politicians in the upper Midwest
area got the President to change the speech after leaving New York.

So in Kasson he pledged:

"And here and now, without any c ifs* or 'butsf I say to you that I
stand behind— and the Republican Party stands behind— the price sup-
port laws now on the books. This includes the amendment to the
basic Farm Act, passed by votes of both parties in Congress, to con-
tinue through IQ54 the price supports on basic commodities at go
per cent of parity' 9

Moreover, he said these supports were "a moral and legal commit-
ment which must be upheld."
Even though I foresaw many difficulties arising from the pledge,

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 39

the die was cast. Both Eisenhower and I believed that what is said
during a campaign should be carried out after the election. Though the
law was a straitjacket for many farmers and to government, we would
have to live with it as best we could.

I made it clear to Senator Young and the Committee that I would
certainly carry out the Kasson pledge.

A general impression existed, persisted Senator Young, that I op-
posed price supports. "You are, however, in favor of 90 per cent? 35 he
asked.

"Yes, if it's on the books," I answered, meaning that as Secretary
I would be committed to carry out the law. "Supports are no substitute
for parity in the market," I added, but I recognized there must be
some means of protecting farmers against disaster from falling prices. 3

Senator Young continued to probe: Would I favor maintaining sup-
ports at 90 per cent beyond 1954? I refused to tie my hands.

Apart from Senator Young and Senator Edward J. Thye of Min-
nesota, the Committee response was favorable. Senator Clinton P. An-
derson, who had been the Secretary of Agriculture under President
Truman from 1945 to 1948, Senator George D. Aiken of Vermont,
and Senator Herman Welker of Idaho, all expressed approval of my
position and my answers,

I concluded by saying, "I did not seek to be Secretary, but if I am
confirmed I will do everything I can for the welfare of the nation and
its farmers."

After a two-hour session all members of the committee voted that my
nomination should be sent to the Senate, but Senator Young reserved
the right to oppose my confirmation on the floor.

The Wall Street Journal commented: "Some of the Senators . , .
apparently thought his [Benson's] refusal to commit himself to gov-
ernment subsidies as a permanent unassailable way of rural life was
just short of subversive."

8 The parity concept was developed after World War I. According to the theorists,
parity was a condition of balance between the prices received by the farmers and
the prices paid by them. Such a condition of balance, it was assumed, existed m the
period 1910-14. This, then, was the base period. The price of wheat, for example,
would be 100 per cent of parity when the selling price of a bushel of wheat would
buy as much of other goods as it did in 191 0-14.

This was the year in which Joseph Stalin, one
of history's cruelest tyrants, and Robert A. Toft,
one of freedom's great defenders, died. Nikita
Khrushchev became Secretary of the Communist
Party and number two man in the Soviet hier-
archy, and the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II
was performed at Westminster Abbey. An Armi-
stice was signed in Korea and an anti-Communist
riot broke out in East Germany. The United
States successfully fired an atomic weapon on the
Nevada desert. Russia exploded a "hydrogen de-
vice" — to our dismay only about ten months after
our first hydrogen explosion on Eniwetok. We
weren't so far ahead as we'd hoped.

It was the year in which Sir Edmund Hillary
and a British expedition climbed Mount Everest,
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed at Sing
Sing for stealing and turning atomic secrets over
to Russia, and William N. Oatis, an Associated
Press correspondent, was released from prison in
Czechoslovakia. There was a big boom in para-
keets and sunglasses; a baking company, seeing the
interest in deep freezes, put out a million loaves of
frozen bread; and the New York Yankees beat the
Brooklyn Dodgers in the World Series four games
to two.

In the Eisenhower Administration it was a year
in which we were to give primary emphasis to
foreign affairs, but the groundwork was laid for
progress in domestic legislation in ig§4. And for
me personally it was the first year of struggle for
political survival

1953

Setting Up Shop— II

Coming up from Lackland Air Force Base at San Antonio, Texas, for
the Inauguration, our son Reed arrived in Washington the evening of
Friday, January 16, and went with me to the Westchester Apartments
where living quarters had been reserved for us by J. Willard Marriott.

I wish I could pay suitable tribute to Bill Marriott. A man in public
life needs some non-governmental friends he can trust implicitly. To me,
Bill was and had been that kind of thoughtful, unselfish friend for
years.

Reed and I talked awhile and then turned in for a night's rest.
He probably knew I was tense, but I told him — and myself — Pd get used
to it. Next morning, I was surprised to find Reed sleeping on the floor in
the living room. He grinned at me, mumbling that adjustment came easy.
"You sure slept well," he said. "Your snoring drove me out of the room."

That Saturday morning we went down early to our temporary offices
in the World Center Building. Out of the corner of my eye, so to
speak, I watched Reed swing into action as the phones rang, visitors
called, interview followed interview, conferences convened and long
after downtown Washington had quieted, our activities went on.

That night a tailor came by the apartment to fix me up in an
Inaugural outfit. Reed poked a little fun at me as I stood there with
typical male futility, submitting to a fitting of my "monkey suit."

The Inaugural Committee had provided an Adjutant, a Lieutenant
Colonel Meyers, to direct us to all the official functions. Later that night
he drove us by car over the parade route, mostly for Reed's benefit,
because Reed planned to see the President sworn in at the Capitol and
then hoof it — getting a cab would be impossible — from the Capitol to

44 CROSS FIRE

the White House (about two miles) in time to hear me take the oath.
Colonel Meyers showed him the shortest route.

Sunday brought the best event of all. Flora arrived from Salt Lake.

On Monday I spent another full and busy day at the office while
Flora and Reed met President and Sister David O. McKay at the train
and saw that they were well taken care of all day. That night we
all went to the Inaugural Festival. There was a galaxy of stars: Fred
Waring, Edgar Bergen and "Charlie McCarthy/ 3 Esther Williams, John
Wayne, Hoagy Carmichael, Walter Pidgeon, et al.

And then finally, the unforgettable event millions had been yearning
for arrived — the Inauguration of Dwight David Eisenhower on Tues-
day, January 20, 1953.

The day began with a service at 9:30 a.m. at the National Presby-
terian Church at Connecticut Avenue and N Street, for the President-
elect, the Cabinet, and their immediate families. Earnestly we petitioned
that the hand of the Almighty would sustain this great and good man
to whose leadership the people of America had entrusted their future.
As for myself, I humbly begged the Father of us all to guide me so
that I might never do anything to bring harm to farmers or any other
citizens of this choice land.

Motorcycle police convoyed all of us to the Capitol for the swearing-
in at 12 noon. The band was playing, thousands thronged the Capitol
grounds, the day was beautiful — and Heaven seemed to smile.

The sincerity with which Dwight David Eisenhower responded to
the oath of office and the feeling in his Inaugural Address were mov-
ing indeed. But what touched me, and I'm sure many others, most pro-
foundly, was the self-composed prayer with which he began his address.

"My friends," he said, "before I begin the expression of those thoughts
that I deem appropriate to this moment, would you permit me the
privilege of uttering a little private prayer of my own. And I ask that
you bow your heads.

"Almighty God, as we stand here at this moment my future associates
in the executive branch of government join me in beseeching that Thou
will make full and complete our dedication to the service of the people
in this throng, and their fellow citizens everywhere.

"Give us, we pray, the power to discern clearly right from wrong,
and allow all our words and actions to be governed thereby, and by
the laws of this land. Especially we pray that our concern shall be
for all the people regardless of station, race, or calling.

"May cooperation be permitted and be the mutual aim of those who,
under the concepts of our Constitution, hold to differing political

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 45

faiths; so that all may work for the good of our beloved country and
Thy glory. Amen."

Looking over the faces of that vast throng as the President launched
into his address, one sensed America's spiritual hunger. Within my own
heart I knew a reassurance. Here was a man of deep spirituality. At
that moment I had a most firm conviction that no matter what the
difficulties of the future, I would find satisfaction working with him
as the servant, never the dictator, of our farm people and all other
Americans.

Though the President, true to his concern, tried to speed up the
buffet luncheon in the Senate dining room, quite a long time elapsed
before the parade started down Pennsylvania Avenue toward the review-
ing stand. Even a Chief Executive must bow to protocol.

It was wonderfully pleasant to sit in the official car beside Flora in
her new red and black coat and new hat. Beth had the word for them —
"nifty." Riding down the Avenue, with hundreds of thousands of
people waving, I held Flora's hand, and it all seemed to be a dream.
Yet even in the exciting spell of that moment the awareness of the
responsibility that had come to me hovered like a shadow overhead.
There would be a time when the crowds were gone.

At the National Armory that night, we watched and joined in the
celebration. People had come from all over the country — the ladies in
their most formal and beautiful gowns, adorned with exquisite jewels
and unusual and sometimes fantastic hairdos — to see and be seen.
Despite the jam-packed dance floor and the long lines waiting for
refreshments and wraps, the crowd was good-natured, happy to be
there.

Then we went to the second section of the Ball at Georgetown
University. Here the same atmosphere prevailed. It was 2:30 a.m. when
we returned to the apartment. It had been a long, happy, tiring day.
But it was right to rejoice; this was a traditionally good day for America.
It was a new Administration, a new start, a new year.

It had been hoped that all members of the Cabinet, except Secretary
Charles E. Wilson, would be confirmed on Inauguration Day. Wilson
was an exception because a question had arisen concerning a possible
conflict of interest. As head of General Motors, which held many
defense contracts, he owned about $2,500,000 of GM stocks. The
Senate balked at confiraiing him for Secretary of Defense. Wilson

46 CROSS FIRE

finally resolved the issue by agreeing to sell all his GM stocks by
April 1.

The plan was for President Eisenhower to send his Cabinet nomina-
tions to the Senate immediately upon being sworn. The nominees could
then have been confirmed that same day by the unanimous consent of
the Senate. But when Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon objected, the
plan fell through. With the exception of Wilson, therefore, the Cabinet
was confirmed the day after the Inauguration, January 21.

Reed sat in the Senate gallery to hear the debate. He reported later
to Flora and the rest of us, "They discussed Dad for about an hour,
and there were a lot of fine tributes. Senator Young left the floor of
the Senate when the vote was called. But of those who voted, approval
was unanimous."

At 5:30 that same afternoon we were sworn in at a mass ceremony
in the beautiful Gold Room in the east wing of the White House.

Besides the President and Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson, only the
new Cabinet and members of their immediate families were present.
Flora and Reed accompanied me.

The Chief Justice, wearing his black robes, his features bespeaking
a kindly austerity, administered the oath to us one by one. Supporting
a Bible in the palm of his left hand and with his right hand raised,
Vinson directed each of us to place his left hand on the Bible and,
holding his right hand aloft, to recite the oath. I did.

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of
Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, and will to the best of
my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, so help me God."

It was a simple yet very comprehensive oath. It pledged me, before
God, to uphold our inspired Constitution and to dutifully perform my
responsibilities to agriculture. I know all of us were struck as never
before by the solemn obligations we were assuming.

As each of us was sworn the President stepped forward to shake
hands, and to each he had something personal to say. To Secretary of
State John Foster Dulles it was, "Now you've got a job/ 5 To Secretary
of the Treasury Humphrey, "Now we're solvent." And to me, "Welcome
to a tough assignment."

It took only about eleven minutes, it was said, to swear us in. Thus I
became the fifteenth man to serve as United States Secretary of
Agriculture.

At about 8:30 on the morning of January 22, my first full day as

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 47

Secretary, the chauffeur picked up Flora, Reed, and me at the West-
chester Apartments and drove us to the Department of Agriculture in
the black Cadillac limousine.

Down Massachusetts Avenue we rode, past the U. S. Naval Ob-
servatory, the huge British Embassy and other embassies and legations;
turning into Rock Creek Park, briefly skirting the Potomac River;
then onto Virginia Avenue and past the State and Interior Departments;
next onto broad Constitution Avenue, with the White House seen
through the evergreens on the left and the Washington Monument
rising in pure magnificence on the right. Another turn, a wait for a
red light, and a few seconds later we pulled into the driveway before
the main entrance of the Administration Building.

Then riding the elevator to the second floor, we entered the offices
of the Secretary.

It seemed strange to take my place in the chair behind the big desk
in the huge office that was to be my principal place of work. The man
sitting behind this desk makes decisions affecting tens of millions of
people all over the world. He meets with the world's leaders. What
he does, what he says, even what he thinks is no longer a private
affair; he is a public figure.

Every day, events were bringing me up against this realization. Was
I really the man for this job? All that remained was to do the best I
could. Who was it that said the forest would be too still if all the birds
were quiet except the best singer?

Turn to the job at hand, I told myself.

The first thing was to get acquainted with the mechanics. I had
only to press this or that interphone button to be in immediate com-
munication with any of my principal assistants. Then, after a quick look
at the private dining room adjoining my office, I took Flora and Reed
around to meet the staff.

Despite efforts to lose myself in the task of the moment, my senti-
ments must have been showing, for Reed said, "You still look tense,
Dad. You're feeling the pressures and responsibility already, aren't you?"
And I told him the truth with a faint smile, "I wouldn't be the least
bit disappointed if I could find a valid excuse to go back to Salt
Lake right now."

That was the truth, if it could have been done without knowing
I was running out on my duty.

At 10:00 a.m. that morning we held our first meeting. Morse,
Coke, Paarlberg, Ferguson, Davis, and several others newly appointed
came into my office. I met them at the door, shook hands and invited

48 GROSS FIRE

them to the chairs arranged in a semicircle on three sides of my desk.
After making the necessary introductions, I began. "Gentlemen, I pro-
pose to open this, our first official meeting, with a prayer for divine
blessing and guidance, and I would like to make this a regular practice
at all our staff meetings. However, I don't insist upon this being done
if you prefer otherwise."

No one dissented. "I hope that each member of the staff will be
willing to take his regular turn at giving the invocation." Thus began
a custom which we continued throughout my entire term as Secretary.
Only once did a member of the staff, a new man, beg off. "Mr.
Secretary," he said privately after a meeting, "I'd appreciate it if you
didn't call on me for a while. I'll let you know when I'm ready." He did,
I called on him, and after that he took his regular turn.

This custom, I'm sure, contributed immeasurably to the unity of the
staff.

Although tobacco smoke is obnoxious to me, I never asked them or
anyone else not to smoke in my office, unless he pulled out a pipe. Ash
trays were available, but inconspicuous. The staff, some of whom smoked,
were very considerate and rarely, if ever, was there smoking during
meetings. Many of the people who came to my office for conferences
refrained from smoking out of courtesy.

All my life I had been "T.," Ezra, or Taft to my associates, and
Brother Benson to members of our Church. Now, suddenly, people
said "Mr. Secretary."

During the first few weeks, the two or three members of my own
Church on the staff forgot themselves and sometimes addressed me as
"Brother Benson." Though this, I'm quite sure, caused some raising of
eyebrows, it didn't in any way bother me.

The work of the Davis committee on reorganizing the Department
now paid off. On this first day in office we announced a regrouping
of the twenty agencies and bureaus in the Department into four major
categories, each headed by a staff officer. Instead of the heads of all
these agencies and bureaus reporting directly to the Secretary as in the
past, only four persons would now have to do so. We expected this to
increase the effectiveness of internal operations and improve service to
farmers. I also went up to Capitol Hill for informal meetings with
several members of the House Committee on Agriculture and the Sub-
committee on Agricultural Appropriations.

On Friday, January 23, the Cabinet met at the White House for
the first time. The meeting room is next to the President's suite in the
West Terrace. Its long French windows, rising from floor level high

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 49

up the wall, lead to an open veranda. The opposite wall is lined with
built-in bookshelves. On a third wall is a large fireplace and mantel
adorned by a handsome Seth Thomas clock. A huge picture of Abra-
ham Lincoln looks down on the room from its position above the
mantel. The room has a long, coffin-shaped mahogany table in the
center, with a set of notepaper and pencils provided at each place.
A nameplate on the back of each of the black leather armchairs
identifies the position of each Cabinet member around the table. The
President does not sit at either end of the table but in the middle on
one side.

Protocol calls for all members to be in the room before the President
enters. Everyone stands when he comes in and remains so until he is
seated.

At this meeting on the Friday after Inauguration, the President
plunged right into the business of the day, without an opening prayer.
I was deeply disappointed. Had he rejected my suggestion at the Com-
modore, I wondered, or encountered a negative reaction from some of
the members? I decided to try to find out later.

The discussion centered on the President's State of the Union Ad-
dress scheduled for early February and the Charles E. Wilson situation.
Wilson had not yet been confirmed.

Cabinet meetings throughout the Eisenhower years generally con-
vened on Friday morning at 9 or 9:30. They might last an hour or up
to three hours, but the average was about 90 minutes. Often the meet-
ings were attended by members of the President's staff, heads of inde-
pendent agencies, and other government officials. It was by no means
rare to have several such "outsiders" present. At other times, the meet-
ings were executive with only the President and the Cabinet there.

Back to my new job and then, all too soon, it was late afternoon
and time to drive Flora to the airport.

Never before had the two of us found it so hard to part. It would
be five long months before Flora could join me in Washington — not
until after the children were out of school in June. Meantime, besides
caring for the needs of the children, she would shoulder the responsi-
bility of selling our home and moving East.

We said goodby at the loading gate. I watched the plane roll out
on the runway to a far end of the field, saw it rise, climb into the sky,
and circle gracefully going westward until its lights ceased to blink
goodby — and then I stood at the fence for a long time,, glad of the
covering darkness.

After a while I went back to the Westchester and entered the smaller

50 CROSS FIRE

apartment into which Flora had moved my things. Everywhere I turned
I saw evidences of her thoughtf ulness : the way she had arranged my
clothes and other possessions in the closet, brought in food, placed family
pictures here and there, and the loving note she had written. And
then, for the first time, it was suddenly more than I could bear. The
job ahead seemed too big, the load too heavy, loneliness too sharp a
pain. I broke down and wept aloud.

First Chorus: Pastoral

In the American tradition a newly seated public official usually enjoys
a honeymoon, an indeterminate period of getting acquainted with his
job during which he is spared harsh criticism by the political opposi-
tion. His critics may be sharpening their scalping knives in secret, but
while the honeymoon is on, they refrain from brandishing them. It's a
rather nice custom.

The quick first reactions to my appointment had been almost embar-
rassingly favorable. I was touched by what seemed a special emphasis
upon "integrity" and high principles"; and amused by verbal por-
traits of myself as "the most gentle of gentlemen," a man of "sweet
tempered disposition, but also character and guts," as well as "the per-
fect luncheon club type."

The leaders of the major farm organizations vied with one another
in kind words. Allan Kline, head of the American Farm Bureau Fed-
eration, called mine "a top-notch appointment." Herschel Newsom,
Master of the National Grange, thought that "President Eisenhower is
to be commended in his choice."

Most interesting (in view of later developments) was the statement
by James G. Patton, the head of the National Farmers Union: "I
have known Ezra Benson since 1938, and while we have disagreed on
some matters I have found him both honest and magnanimous. He will
hold the balance level between farm organizations, which is all we ask.

"Further he has had fine training for his great task ... He will
stoutly oppose the unfair tax burden on cooperatives ... He will sup-
port policies that encourage the family farm . . .

"All in all, I think this is one of the best of Mr. Eisenhower's Cabinet
appointments, one which promises well."

52 CROSS FIRE

Politics being what they are and with agriculture in a situation of
price and income decline, a short honeymoon was probably inevitable;
and I did enjoy what there was of it. But I didn't expect my political
honeymoon to be one of the shortest in the memory of informed Wash-
ingtonians.

After my nomination, it was said that I was something of a "dark
horse." It may have been an accurate choice of words; anyway in
many people's eyes I got rapidly darker.

Even before I was sworn in, the sweet strains of harmony had al-
ready been disturbed by those few sour notes: criticism because we had
non-farmers on the Interim Agricultural Advisory Commission and the
dissatisfaction of Senator Young over my testimony.

But the discordant notes rose in sharp crescendo with our regrouping
of the USDA agencies and specifically over pulling what was named
the Agricultural Conservation Program out of the Production and Mar-
keting Administrations. This we did for several good reasons. First, the
Agricultural Conservation Program, as its name implies, logically be-
longs in a group with the Soil Conservation Service, the Forest Service,
and other agencies concerned with proper use of the land. Second,
the Production and Marketing Administrations had become in a sense al-
most bigger than the Department itself. The tail was wagging the dog.
I wanted to cut it down to size. Finally, we felt that PMA had been
used to some extent as a political adjunct of the Democratic Party
through the activities of some of its county committeemen. The members
of these committees were supposed to be farmers who had been elected
by their fellow farmers to administer the conservation program at the
local county level. In effect, however, some of the committees had been
used to help promote Democratic Congressmen, When this was the case,
the committees usually were completely dominated by their chairmen.
To remedy this, we decided to rotate the chairmanships of the county
committees.

Immediately I was accused by the Democrats of crippling a mecha-
nism through which American farmers gave expression to their desires.
My position was that I had merely put a check-rein on a mechanism
that was in some cases being used for partisan purposes. I believed
then, as I do now, that agriculture is neither Democratic nor Republi-
can. It is American.

Another matter that caused rumblings resulted from a misunderstood
molehill which the press managed to make into a small mountain of
resentment.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 53

Our memo to USDA employees explaining the regrouping of agencies,
contained one paragraph which read:

"As public servants, we must recognize the duty and responsibility
we have to serve the public efficiently and well. The people of this
country have a right to expect that everyone of us will give a full
day's work for a day's pay. They have a right to expect that we will
find more effective and economical ways of doing our job. In these
times of unprecedented public debt and continued high Federal ex-
penditures, the public rightfully expects us to put forth even greater
effort to effect savings in government operations and to reduce public
expenses. Fulfillment of this responsibility will require the undivided
loyalty and support of every agency head and employee in the Depart-
ment. We must work as a team if we are to meet the problems that lie
ahead and render the greatest possible service to the farmers of America,
the entire agricultural industry, and to this great and good country we
love so much."

The phrase "full day's work for a day's pay" was picked up by certain
newspapers and featured all over the country as an indication that I
felt the Department was filled with loafers and that we were going to
crack down on them. While I did mean to say plainly that I expected
a hard and full day's work for all employees, I was not being critical.
The prominence given this item genuinely distressed me.

The memo began by complimenting the personnel of USDA on their
record of service, and I meant it sincerely. But as taken out of con-
text and interpreted both by our critics and some would-be friends,
many employees saw it as a slur against their dedication. I was learn-
ing that every word had to be twice weighed.

Attorney General Brownell got into a similar box. He made it known
that he expected Justice Department people to get to work on time and
stay there until the regular closing hour. A Washington paper remarked,
"The principal result seems to be a strict observance of the quitting
time. No more sticking with a problem until it is licked."

Over-all, however, the vast majority of the press strongly sup-
ported these early actions, specifically the regrouping of agencies.

The minor discords and the supporting sounds were my introduc-
tion to a new kind of chorus, one that sang with remarkable effect
and influence throughout the land. It was far from the swelling harmonies
of our famed Tabernacle Choir in Salt Lake, but I listened to it for the
first time with an awe-ful sense of its power. It was the chorus of news-
paper headlines.

54 CROSS FIRE

BENSON SHARPENS FARM ECONOMY AX— sang
an Oklahoma headline,

AGRICULTURE SHAKEUP STARTS— Texas

AGENCY REFORM LAUNCHED— Massachusetts

BENSON STARTS PLAN TO TRIM FARM GROUP— Ohio

NEW BROOM AT WORK— Utah

Various editorials sang in syncopation:

BENSON GOOD START

THE BEST "NEW DEAL"

BACK TO SANITY IN CONSERVING SOIL

MR. BENSON AT THE PLOW

Letters started to pour in from all quarters of the land, too. Not
every one was critical. One typical note from a man in California
referring to the regrouping of USDA agencies for increased efficiency,
said in part: "Your order given yesterday to your Department was one
of the most heartening things that has happened in Washington in a
long, long time. It made the ordinary citizen feel that here at last is
someone who is going to think a little about the taxpayer."

Thus began the busiest and loneliest period of my life. It was as
though I had moved into an entirely new world — out of the quiet,
unselfish world of Church service into an arena of pressure, excitement,
uncertainty, and battle.

I know I haven't made clear as yet why the responsibilities of this
new job should have seemed so overwhelming, and Fm not sure that
I can.

But look at it this way; Agriculture is the number-two big business
in the nation. Only the national defense is bigger. And the Secretary
of Agriculture has greater influence over the economic welfare of our
farm people (some 25,000,000 in 1953) than any other single person.
Besides the several commodities for which the law requires price sup-
port, he has power to influence the price of every one of the roughly
250 commodities farmers produce — at his discretion. He recommends
legislation to the President who in turn generally recommends it to the
Congress. He has immense power to influence the economic and po~

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 55

litical philosophy determining the whole relationship of government to
agriculture.

If you as an incoming Secretary believed in the policies of your
predecessor, your job would be primarily administrative, minding the
store, so to speak, and that might not be too political. But if you be-
lieved the policies of your predecessor were wrong for farmers and
wrong for America — if you believed these policies were weakening initia-
tive, discouraging self-reliance, undermining character and demoralizing
the people you were sworn to serve, then you would have to do every-
thing in your power to change those policies no matter how deep-
seated they had become.

You would have to educate and explain and plead and cajole. You
would have to be stubborn if necessary, impervious to much of the
criticism, but recognizing that which was constructive, and resolute in
working for the changes you believed vital. You would have to be pre-
pared to take the blame if your recommendations were misunderstood
or if reversing the direction of agricultural programs brought temporary
dislocations into the farm economy.

And you would have to be ready to run the gauntlet of unceasing
attack from those who had committed their political futures to a con-
tinuation of the status quo. They would be out to destroy you politically,
lest they be politically destroyed themselves.

As I saw it, the New Deal-Fair Deal farm policies had to be changed.
They had given our agriculture a damaging inferiority complex.

Ours was the finest farming the world had ever seen; yet the politicians
and government policies implied to farmers: You're too weak to stand
on your own feet, too unwise to make your own decisions, too im-
mature to compete in the market place.

We had too much government "Big Brother" in agriculture. It's true
that farmers were suffering from price and income troubles. But it was
also true that the very governmental policies which were supposed to
alleviate these troubles were generally causing greater troubles than the
ones they were supposed to cure.

Farmers were going through a postwar adjustment, always a difficult
situation. During the war and for a while afterward, it's: "Food will
win the war," "Food will write the peace," "Produce, produce, PRO-
DUCE." But when the emergency ends and the insatiable demands of
war and the immediate postwar period are over, but government in-
centives are continued then farmers are apt to be trapped by the tidal
wave of their own abundant production.

That's because they cannot turn production on and off as other in-

56 GROSS FIRE

dustries can. Nor are they able to shift readily from crops with high
war priority to those with high peacetime priority. Because of this in-
elasticity, agriculture cannot set the price for its products in the market
place.

This is what led to agricultural disaster following World War I. I
know about that from personal experience. My brother Orval and I
bought the Benson family farm in 1923 and we had a struggle to keep
up the payments. It wasn't that Orval and I didn't farm efficiently.
We kept up with advances in technology. The family used to sell milk
to a condensing plant. We put in bottling machines and sold milk in
Preston, the county seat. We had 250 chickens, a good-sized flock in
those days. We raised about a dozen hogs a season. We'd slaughter a
hog for winter eating and we'd trade eggs for groceries. And we did a
good job on field crops, too.

The trouble simply was that we bought at a time when land values
were still inflated and we paid off the debt with dollars that were de-
flated. We knew exactly how painfully a cost-squeeze could pinch.

During the 1920s various government programs were proposed to aid
agriculture, and with the onset of the Great Depression government
really got into the farming business with production adjustment and
price support operations covering several commodities. The basic idea
behind these programs was to relieve farmer distress.

Again, during World War II the government, to encourage all-out
production of food, guaranteed to protect prices of farm products at
a high level through the war and for two years after it ended. This
was quite different from the 1930s when the programs were intended
to protect against distress; now government was offering bonuses, not
just price protection.

This was intended to be a temporary expedient* But as so often
happens, government policies proved to be inelastic, too. In 1953 —
nearly eight years after VE Day and VJ Day— the old wartime price
incentives were still in effect on some commodities. Not only that, the
Truman Administration had extended the duration of these incentives
through 1954.

The program was actually coming apart at the seams. The bonus
prices were calling forth such immense production that the government
obviously was not going to be able to make good on its pledges to keep
prices high.

In spite of artificial government props, the prices farmers were get-
ting for their commodities had been falling sharply for over two years.
But instead of seeking to rectify the situation by calling for reduced

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 57

output, my predecessor had appealed for all-out production for 1953.

Secretary Brannan, it was claimed, made this appeal because the
Korean War was still being fought, but it was easy to see that the only
thing that could justify it and bail fanners out was a much bigger war
which would have resulted in vastly increasing demand. Brannan was
quoted as saying, "I would never lose a wink of sleep if my policies led
to overproduction of some crops."

They helped lead to a grade A mess.

Part of the trouble was an oversimplified, and therefore false, notion
of what a farmer is. People talk about "the farmer" as though he is
only one of a kind. Of course, there is no more one farmer than there
is one kind of businessman, or one kind of engineer, or clergyman, or
policeman, or soldier. That was one of the troubles with the price sup-
port program. It fixed support at 90 per cent of parity for wheat,
for com, for cotton, for rice, for peanuts, for tobacco. And 90 per
cent of parity does not necessarily mean the same thing for wheat as for
corn, for cotton as for tobacco, for rice as for peanuts. Yet the law
said 90 per cent — no matter what the supply on hand — no matter what
such an artificial price might do to any one of these six commodities.

Basically our agriculture was in good condition to produce efficiently
and to compete in markets both at home and abroad — if it could get
the artificial incentive programs off its back and out from under.

In less than ten years, output per man-hour of work on farms had
increased more than 50 per cent. Mechanization had completely
changed some farming operations. In early 1953 &&£ were over
4,000,000 tractors on farms, twice as many as a decade earlier and
around 2,500,000 trucks, also twice as many as in 1943. There were
nearly a million grain combines and about 600,000 mechanical corn-
pickers, respectively three and five times as many as a decade earlier.

Electricity, too, had greatly changed farm living. About nine out of
ten farms had electric power, compared with about one out of three
ten years earlier. (As a farm boy who had milked cows by hand, fetched
water by the bucket, and studied my lessons by the light of a kero-
sene lamp, I was mighty glad to see it.)

Mechanization, electrification, and the continued development of bet-
ter farming methods should have enabled our farm people to face the
future with confidence. Instead many were disturbed and worried.

On my swing around the country, over and over I had asked farm-
ers this question: "What do you think the future holds for agriculture?"
And again and again the answers had left me with this dominant im-
pression: Farmers all over the country felt that they had already gone

58 CROSS FIRE

too far down the road to socialism and they wanted to turn back.
There was too much government domination, especially of the "politi-
cal" or so-called basic crops: wheat, corn, cotton, tobacco, rice, and
peanuts.

A good many farmers were taking government help against their own
better judgment, even contrary to their consciences. Some of them told
me, "Well, we've been taking these government handouts for lime and
fertilizer, but we've never felt quite right about it." Others were grow-
ing corn, wheat and cotton, not for sale in the market place but to turn
it over to the government for the guaranteed 90 per cent of parity.

Perhaps one of the reasons they didn't feel right about it was the
conditions and restrictions attached to the government handouts. One
feature penalized farmers for feeding their own excess wheat to their
own livestock, a device not only unjust, but plain silly. For a generation,
farmers in the South had been urged by government officials and pri-
vate experts to improve their diets by growing a little wheat for biscuits
and chicken feed. Yet, here was a Federal regulation forbidding it un-
less the grower had an allotment.

A filling station operator in a southern state planted a few rows of
cotton as an attraction to northern tourists. He put up signs: help
yourself to souvenirs. He was fined for planting cotton illegally be-
cause he had no cotton acreage allotment. Such provisions overstepped
the limits of common sense.

Worst of all, the programs weren't getting at the real problem in
agriculture.

A vast chasm separated the efficient, mechanized commercial farm
run by a highly skilled operator from the small, ill-equipped, poor soil
farm run by an operator with subpar education and skill and very little
capital Some 1,500,000 families living on farms were estimated to have
cash incomes of less than $1000 a year. These families needed help
and weren't getting much. On the other hand, typical commercial
farms valued at $100,000 or more and debt free were quite common.
These farmers were the biggest beneficiaries of the government pro-
grams.

I had a nagging conviction that these unwise government policies
threatened to undermine the moral fiber of our farm people. This
wasn't something measurable, but something felt. It seemed to me that
if there was a grain of truth in the Fascist jibe of the 1940s and the
Communists contention of the 1950s that the U.S. was a "decadent
democracy" the answer might be found in the tendency to look more
and more to Washington for the solution of all problems.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 59

It just isn't good for government to do for people what they can
and should do for themselves. All through our national history, until
very recent times, the American people had clung to this belief. Any
country which pursues policies that cause the self-reliance, initiative, and
freedom of its people to drain slowly away is a country in danger. Was
this what was happening to some segments of our farming population?
To me farm people have always been the most solid of all our citi-
zens. I have always regarded them as the strongest bulwark of our
free way of life and I still do. From our farm and rural families have
come much of the faith, courage, and leadership which have enabled
the United States to face and surmount its challenges. But how long
would it be, under the existing governmental paternalism in agriculture,
before our rural people would begin to forget that "as ye sow so shall
ye reap"?

That's why I found the burden heavy, the responsibility immense.

Meantime, the Cabinet thing had been on my mind. "Show me an
individual who lives without prayer and I will show you an individual
who lives without the bread of life." My great-grandfather after whom I
was named had said that about a hundred year's ago. What applied to
the individual, I thought, might also apply to a group.

After a good deal of thought I sent President Eisenhower a note:

January 28, 1953
The President
The White House

Dear Mr. President:

Many times during recent weeks I have wanted to tell you how pleased
and grateful I am for the privilege of being on your "team," even though
the responsibility entailed is almost overwhelming.

It is my prayer I shall ever be found upholding your hand in every
worthy effort. You have my love and complete confidence, and my
prayers also.

The inaugural address was masterful and inspiring, and the prayer most
comforting and reassuring. The people of America are hungry for simple
sincere spirituality in their leadership.

May I make bold to suggest that each of our weekly Cabinet meetings
be opened with a word of prayer, as you so appropriately started the first
one. The suggestion is made only because of my love for you, members of
the Cabinet, and the people of this great Christian nation. I know that
without God's help we cannot succeed. With His help we cannot fail.
Franklin said, 166 years ago when he made a similar suggestion, "God
governs in the affairs of men."

60 CROSS FIRE

I feel sure there are several of us, who, if called on for a word of prayer,
would willingly respond. Such a procedure is working with my own staff.

If you feel the suggestion is not practical, then I will understand and
will not trouble you further in the matter.

May the Almighty sustain and magnify you in all the days to come.

With affectionate regards,

Faithfully yours,
Ezra Taft Benson

Two days later the Cabinet convened again for its regular weekly
meeting. Again, no opening prayers — and no indication that my note
had reached the President. Had I overstepped the bounds of propriety?

On February 3, the President sent a letter. An excerpt:

"The fact is that for a custom like this to have its full beneficial effect it
must be accepted, almost eagerly accepted, by everyone. I have been trying
to do a little bit of quiet exploration and within a reasonable time I shall
make a decision."

The President never discussed the matter further, and I can only
guess the reaction of the other Cabinet members. At the next meet-
ing, on February 6, however, the President said simply, "If there is no
objection, we'll begin our deliberations with prayer."

And that's the way it was with the Eisenhower Cabinet from that
time on.

Usually we raised our hearts to the Almighty in silence. The Presi-
dent once summed up our common sentiment by remarking, a One of
the fine things about silent prayer is that it shuts out the noise of the
world."

Second Chorus: Thunderheads

Political novice though I was, I knew that a Cabinet member's first
news conference and first major speech were likely to be crucial. Prepa-
ration was in order to make the right impression but there was no point
in delaying the plunge too long.

On February 5, fifteen days after taking office, about a hundred re-
porters and radio and television men jammed into room 218 of the
USDA's Administration Building for our first news conference — and the
first to be held by a member of the Eisenhower Cabinet. The room
has about ten highly polished tables fitted together to make a huge
hollow oval. Thirty or forty chairs circle the outer rim, another twenty

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 6l

are on the inner rim, and additional chairs stand along three walls.
The fourth wall is decorated by a large forest scene.

After welcoming the reporters to the Department and telling them
they would always find the latchstring out, I remarked, "No doubt,
there will be many things about which some of you will differ with me.
But I hope you will never have cause to question my sincerity. I will
do my best never to give you cause."

We contemplated no sweeping changes at that time in the Depart-
ment or in immediate farm policy, I said. "This is a time for delibera-
tion, not for haste."

There would be no Brannan Plan type of approach, to change the
whole face of American agriculture and make farmers wards of the
Federal Government. It is all too easy in government to marry emer-
gency programs in haste only to repent of them at painful and costly
leisure.

"Farmers should not be put in the position of working for govern-
ment bounty. Too many Americans are already calling on Washington
to do for them what they can and should be doing for themselves."

We then distributed our General Statement on Agricultural Policy.
This was, I believe, a somewhat unique instrument. It set down plainly
in some 2000 words what we considered the guiding principles of a sound
farm policy. Drawing upon the experience of many persons, I had per-
sonally prepared a first draft. This draft was submitted to, and thor-
oughly worked over by, the National Agricultural Advisory Commission.
It was then submitted to certain agricultural leaders in the Congress for
their suggestions. After staff members made revisions, we checked the
statement further with the farm organizations. Thus, the document
which finally emerged was the product not only of my best thoughts
but of very mature consideration by capable farm leaders. 1

It testified to our belief in freedom and in our rural people as a
"bulwark against all that is aimed at weakening and destroying our
American way of life." While recognizing that the development of mod-
em, mechanized, high investment agriculture had placed the family
farm in a somewhat vulnerable economic position, it cautioned against
an undue concentration of power in Washington and warned against
subsidizing inefficiency in agriculture through endlessly continued "emer-
gency" programs.

Our agriculture policy [it said],
should aim to obtain in the market place full parity prices of farm

iThe full statement is reproduced in Appendix D.

62 CROSS FIRE

products and parity incomes for farm people so that farmers will have
freedom to operate efficiently and to adjust their production to changing
consumer demands in an expanding economy. This objective cannot be
assured by government programs alone . . .

The most important method of promoting the long-time welfare of
farm people and the nation is the support of adequate programs of re-
search and education in the production, processing, marketing, and utili-
zation of farm products and in problems of rural living . . .

Price support laws will be carried out faithfully in every respect. There
are mandatory price supports at 90 per cent of parity on the so-called basic
commodities for 1953 and 1954. Other laws provide for supports on other
farm products. While enforcing these laws, there will be formulated long-
term programs which will more fully and effectively accomplish over-all
objectives.

Price supports should provide insurance against disaster to the farm-
producing plant and help to stabilize national food supplies. But price sup-
ports which tend to prevent production shifts toward a balanced supply in
terms of demand and which encourage uneconomic production and result
in continuing heavy surpluses and subsidies should be avoided.

(Looking back, I'm rather proud of the fact that every sentence
in this statement still holds good almost a decade later. There is not a
single basic thought I would change.)

Following this, I answered questions for an hour.

The reporters asked about livestock prices and farm prices in gen-
eral, the dairy price support program, imports of foreign dairy products
and beef, the effect of controls and compulsory grading on meat, soil
and water conservation, the droughts, the role of the bipartisan ad-
visory committee, and my attitude toward price support.

I tried to make it clear that we had no pet remedies to sell While
we had some definite ideas about the kind of price supports in general
that would best serve agriculture, we welcomed discussion and debate
on the entire question.

A good many reporters kept bobbing up and down, trying to get the
floor simultaneously, calling, "Mr. Secretary! Mr. Secretary !" A lady in
the back of the room had been attempting to ask a question for quite
a while, but every time I tried to recognize her, some more experienced
male would beat her to the punch. Even though women may usually
have the last word, this was one instance where one was having a
hard time getting her first word.

Finally, refusing to recognize anybody else, I said, "Let's get to this
lady in the back of the room — she's been up for quite a while."

As I recall, she repaid the courtesy by asking me a tremendously com-
plicated question about cotton which I couldn't answer very well.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 63

It was the most thorough quizzing I had ever had. The transcript
of the 65 questions and answers covered ten pages, single-spaced.

All in all, we were delighted by the reaction of the reporters and by
their stories. We got off on the right foot.

Despite some anxiety, I rather enjoyed this encounter with the press,
radio, and television. I had determined never to use the "no comment"
cliche. When I could not answer a given query at a particular time,
I would say " We're not prepared to comment on that at this time,"
or "We're firming up our position on that right now; it's still under
consideration," or "We're still getting the facts on that" — something of
that nature.

For the reporters of all the media, I had, and have a deep respect.
The nation depends on them to inform the public, and there is wisdom
and safety in an informed public. With but few exceptions reporters
were objective and honest with me. Now and again some one or two
might press their questions further than good taste would seem to per-
mit, and now and then someone would apparently frame a question
with intent to elicit not information but embarrassment. Nevertheless,
I would not want to run any other public office without frequent con-
tacts with the press.

I held more news conferences than any other official in the Eisen-
hower Administration, I believe.

The first news conference behind, we gave full attention to the first
major speech, scheduled for February 11, before the Central Livestock
Association in St. Paul.

What made this address especially crucial was not just that it was
my first talk as Secretary, but that it would be given to a livestock
association in the upper Midwest at a time when the farm price of
beef had been sliding downhill with frightening speed.

In the 19 months before we took office beef cattle prices under the
Truman Administration had dropped from an all-time high of $30.30
per 100 pounds in April 1951 to $19.70 in January 1953 — a staggering
35 per cent. The country didn't hear much from the Democrats about
this terrible drop until after we took office; then the low price of beef
suddenly became a catastrophic threat against the very foundations of
our nation's agriculture.

Admittedly the situation was grave. Cattle feeders — especially those
who buy cattle to feed to heavier weights and then sell them — were
in deep trouble. They had bought high-priced feeder cattle and put

64 CROSS FIRE

high-priced feed into them; but with every pound of weight their cattle
gained, the price of beef slid lower.

Letters, telegrams, telephone calls, and personal suggestions poured
in from all directions, offering every conceivable kind of solution. One
of the first long-distance telephone calls I had as Secretary — the very
first on this particular subject — was from a dentist in Southern Cali-
fornia, a "suitcase farmer" who had taken a flyer in the cattle business.
We had known each other for many years, having played college basket-
ball together.

My dentist friend sounded desperate. Seeing others make good money
feeding beef, he had rented a lot, bought feed and cattle and hired
a man to run the operation. On Saturday afternoons he used to go
out to the lot to watch his money grow.

The trouble now was that his money wasn't growing any more — it was
shrinking. "Ezra," he said, his voice hoarse with crisis, "you've got to
do something. You can't let this go on this way any longer." He offered
to come to Washington to help me straighten out the mess.

I told him to stick to straightening out teeth, adding that the only
really effective way to get out of the beef mess was to eat our way out.
We were going to take practical steps to ease the situation, I said, but
the government definitely was not going into the meat business. Cattle-
men generally would be better off if he and others like him had stayed
out of the cattle business.

That indeed was part of the difficulty. So many suitcase or ^drug-
store" farmers had gone into farming on a speculative basis that they
had helped flood the market and caused a more severe price reaction
than would otherwise have occurred. Why do city people assume that
anybody who can make a good living in business or the professions is
a cinch to make a killing farming, ranching, or feeding cattle?

For legitimate farmers caught in this cost-price squeeze I had deep
sympathy; but it was hard to work up much emotion for speculators
who had rushed in to skim the cream off a market and now found
their investment turning sour.

Congressmen from the cattle states were especially vocal in clamoring
for aid. They "demanded" that the department buy up a lot of live cat-
tle at prices above the market level to start prices upward again. What
we were expected to do with these live cattle I don't know: Maybe go
on feeding them indefinitely in government corrals. Or maybe slaughter
them and store the beef as the government was storing butter, cheese,
cotton, wheat, and other commodities.

Whatever else we might do, this we would not do. About that I

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 65

was absolutely determined. There just isn't any feasible method of ex-
tending price support to livestock, short of government's taking over a
substantial part of the meat business. The government was in too many
businesses already.

We had more workable plans. The Office of Price Stabilization had
been set up by President Truman during the Korean War. The OPS
established price controls on meat, and these controls, still in effect
when Eisenhower came in, were feeding a huge black market in meat.
Price controls generally speaking are not justified. Under our free en-
terprise system prices serve as a major guide and regulator. Fixing
prices at artificial levels is dangerous and unwise. In 1953 meat sup-
plies were more than adequate. Price controls were keeping retail beef
prices up while an abundance of livestock was driving cattle prices
down.

Moreover, compulsory grading of meat (an adjunct of price controls)
was handicapping the vigorous merchandising necessary to move our
large output of beef onto dining tables.

Meat grading should not be confused with meat inspection. Inspec-
tion is concerned with wholesomeness, sanitation, and freedom from
disease; grading with tenderness and eating qualities. Grading is done
only after the meat has been inspected. It tells consumers whether a
piece of meat is "prime," "choice," "good," or of lower grades. Grad-
ing is a real service to consumers; but, except for periods when price
controls were in force or when state or local regulations required it,
federal meat grading has traditionally been voluntary. In many small
communities in 1953 there was a shortage of graders, and compulsory
grading was interfering with the flow of beef to market.

We urged the President to abolish these two bottlenecks. I made
my position public in a telegram to Governor Dan Thornton of Colo-
rado on January 29:

AM DOING ALL POSSIBLE TO HAVE OPS CONTROLS ON MEAT RE-
MOVED. HAVE ADVISED WITH THE WHITE HOUSE, CONGRESS, FARM
GROUPS, PACKERS, STOCKYARD PEOPLE, AND RETAILERS. ALL I HAVE
LEARNED CONFIRMS MY EARLIER BELIEF, EXPRESSED PRIOR TO MY
APPOINTMENT, THAT OPS MEAT CONTROLS SHOULD BE REMOVED.
IN MY OFFICIAL CAPACITY, I REAFFIRM THAT STAND. REMOVAL
OF OPS COMPULSORY GRADING OF MEAT WOULD BE A GOOD THING
FOR ALL SEGMENTS OF THE INDUSTRY AND THE CONSUMING
PUBLIC.

gg CROSS FIRE

These actions were taken by the President, effective February 6, but
it was too early to gauge their effect by the time of the first speech.

In addition we urged cattlemen to avoid panicky selling, to market
their cows in an orderly manner, and we appealed to processors and
distributors to do what they could to develop large consumer demands
for beef.

I set off for St. Paul hopefully.

About 3000 people, mostly livestock and grain farmers, jammed the
St. Paul municipal auditorium. The Governor of Minnesota, C. Elmer
Anderson, and the Minnesota Legislature were there. Senator Edward
J. Thye did the introduction. The prepared text ran about 4000 words
— reading time about 35 minutes— but I ad libbed a good deal and
ended up speaking nearly an hour. True Morse, John H. Davis and
Jack Davis, and my press aids, had helped me draft it.

The speech began by praising rural people for their solid virtues, and
it quoted passages from the President's State of the Union Address rele-
vant to the need for balancing the budget. Then I plunged into the
subject of falling cattle prices, the need for ending price controls and
compulsory grading on meat; described how we were continuing the
price supports in effect on certain commodities; and how we planned
to use the advisory committees. After bringing in an almost verbatim
section from the Statement of Agricultural Policy given out at the press
conference, it wound up with this peroration:

"We need a nation-wide repentance to rid this land of corruption.
We must return to the fundamental virtues that have made this na-
tion great. There is a Force in the universe which no mortal can alter.
This nation does have a spiritual foundation . . .

"God help us to raise our sights beyond the dollar sign, beyond
material things. May we have the courage to stand up and be counted,
to stand for principle, for those noble concepts and ideals which guided
the founding fathers in the establishment of this great land. Thank
God for the promises that have been made regarding the future of
America. I hope and pray we will merit and realize the fulfillment of
these promises. God grant it may be so."

The speech emphasized the necessity for farmers to stand on their own
feet, and the responsibility of government to provide farm people sound
assistance.

Judging by the ovation when it was over, the newspaper stories in
St. Paul the next morning, and the comments of individuals, I thought
the speech had been well received. Senator Thye said, "Ezra, this talk
had everything you could ask for."

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 67

The chairman of the meeting seemed delighted at the response.
Hundreds of people had swarmed around the platform. It was a warm
and satisfying reaction.

I flew back to Washington and the roof fell in.

I found I was figuratively being torn limb from limb on Capitol
Hill. One of my aides showed me a news story in a Washington paper
which said I had had a chilly reaction from the St. Paul audience.

I laughed. "I hope I always get the kind of chilly reaction that
audience gave."

Had this writer attended the same meeting I had? True, there was
no burst of wild enthusiasm, but as one with substantial experience
in public speaking, I knew the response had been good.

On Capitol Hill, however, the climate was anything but chilly. The
Democrats, especially, were red hot. The venerable Senator James E.
Murray of Montana called the speech "shocking" and "an insult to the
farmer."

"If this be the end of the Administration's honeymoon, so be it,"
he said. "It is far better to end the honeymoon than to end the farmer."
Senator Richard B. Russell of Georgia remarked, "After the election
I promised to cooperate with this Administration, but I'm not going to
follow it down the road to disaster."

Burnet R. Maybank, Senator from South Carolina, thought the
speech showed "a lack of common sense." "If this," he continued, "is an
indication of the policy thinking of the new Secretary, then God help
the poor and working dirt farmers of this country." Then, really warm-
ing up, he pledged, "I do not intend to stand idly by and see men
who have no basic knowledge of our farm problems cut the heart out
of the basic segment of our economy."

Senator John J. Sparkman of Alabama charged that I had in effect
"repudiated the price support program," that my stand "could wreck
agriculture," and Senator James O. Eastland of Mississippi concluded
that farmers who had voted the Republican ticket had had "the rug
pulled out from under them."

Young Congressman (now Senator) Eugene J. McCarthy of Min-
nesota commented that I was "like a man standing on the bank of a
river telling a drowning man that all he needs to do is take a deep
breath of air."

Even some Republicans joined in the outcry. Senator Milton R.
Young of North Dakota, who had walked off the Senator floor in ab-

68 GROSS FIRE

staining from voting on my confirmation a few weeks earlier, proposed
after conferring with some of his colleagues that a committee be
formed to "straighten out Benson." He had already introduced bills to
boost price supports on corn, wheat, cotton, rice, peanuts, and tobacco
to 95 per cent of parity, to add six additional crops to the list and to
extend mandatory price supports until 1957.

Among my supporters, however, were men who turned out to be
more statesman-like: Senator George D. Aiken of Vermont, and Senator
and former Secretary of Agriculture Clinton P. Anderson of New Mex-
ico.

What does all this mean? I asked myself. Even discounting the
shouting and ranting for political effect that is so characteristic of
Capitol Hill, this was a violent reaction.

Most of the fuss apparently revolved around one or two sentences.
In the speech I had said, "Inefficiency should not be subsidized in
agriculture or in any other segment of our economy."

To some, this, taken out of context, apparently meant that I was
calling U.S. farmers inefficient, which was very far from the truth.

What caused blood pressures to rise highest, however, was this state-
ment: "Price supports should provide insurance against disaster to the
farm-producing plant and help to stabilize national food supplies."

I really believe that some of the advocates of strong government
action saw that word "disaster" and promptly went into a kind of
political fit. They viewed it as an indication that I would do nothing
for the farmer until he had met with disaster. But what I had said
was that supports should be used as insurance or protection against
disaster.

Surely there was a world of difference between preventing disaster
and a salvage operation that goes into effect afterward.

I was especially puzzled because the parts of the speech most vehe-
mently criticized were lifted word for word from the policy statement
I had handed out at the press conference six days earlier.

Anyone with a serious interest in the problem would have read it. Up
to the time of my St. Paul speech, there had been not one word
of public opposition to anything in it.

What effect, I wondered, would this barrage have? Would farmers
who hadn't heard me in St. Paul take this criticism as justified?
Would they conclude that I favored letting our good farm families go
broke before we did anything to save them?

Now, for the first time, the true scope and ferocity of the thunder-
storms ahead began to be revealed.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 69

Obviously, there was a depth of feeling, a sacredness attached to the
existing price support program far greater than I had imagined.
Twenty years of a weird kind of vested interest had been built up
around this program. Many of those on Capitol Hill had so thoroughly
committed themselves to it that they apparently believed it could not
be changed even though the facts clearly showed it was wrecking agri-
culture.

A basically economic problem had become charged with political
lightning and political rumblings. Opposition to change, to reasonable
economic analysis, had hardened until it was petrified.

Could it be that smoke screens, distortions, and half-truths had so
polluted the atmosphere that the facts were obliterated? Was it really
such a shocking idea — to call for more free enterprise in agriculture?

I asked the questions and waited. And as the headlines blazed, I
wondered about the President. What did he think of all this?

After a couple of days, with the attacks still coming full force,
friends began calling and suggesting that I see the President to give him
my side of the story. I said, "I'm not going to bother him. If he wants
to see me he'll say so."

During these trying days, I received great encouragement from a
group of men who called themselves the "He-Coons." Most of them
were livestock people, none of them Washington residents, all of
them longtime friends. Included were Albert Mitchell, Jim McConnell,
Homer Davison, Clark Brody, Aled Davies, Harold DeGraff, Norris
Carnes, Harry Burnick, Karl Butler, and a number of others. When I
became Secretary, they had voluntarily associated as "agricultural
minutemen." Whenever agricultural storm clouds appeared particularly
dark, they told me, they intended to gather in Washington on a mo-
ment's notice. The advice and concern of such a group, or for that
matter the very existence of such groups, was rare and quite in-
valuable. Every public man should be as fortunate.

But I wished keenly that I could also talk out my troubles with my
family — even though they were near, because of the strength of their
faith, fasting and prayers in my behalf. In reality I was not alone, and
I knew it. A kind Providence sustained me as I reached out for His
divine aid.

Yet I felt pretty low. I phoned Flora frequently, and she did her
best to keep my spirits up. "You mustn't worry," she'd say. "The Presi-
dent is still behind you, isn't he?"

"I hope so," I said. "But you know the President reads the news-
papers, too."

70 CROSS FIRE

I felt fairly sure that the President agreed with what I had said, but
I also thought it entirely possible that the uproar might convince him
that I had rapidly outlived whatever usefulness he had envisioned.
One of the facts of political life is that Cabinet officers are expendable.
If a Secretary gets into trouble, the system contemplates that he can
step aside, another appointee can take his place, and the work of the
Department can continue with only slight interruption.

Some members of Congress began to urge the President to fire me.
Resistance to the pressure to force me out, some newsmen suggested,
might occasion the first split between the President and the Congress.
This he could not afford in a Congress so evenly divided.

A major topic of conversation in the Departmental car pools was:
"How long will he last?" I understand that betting pools were formed
on the exact date of my resignation, with the holder of the "lucky
date" taking all.

On February 17, four weeks to the day after the Inauguration, I read
in the column of one of the nation's best known commentators, who
purported to be quoting a White House aide; "Benson is expendable."
I might soon be "promoted" to an ambassadorship. But I knew there
would be no ambassadorship for me. Either I would be in as Secretary
or back in Salt Lake out of government altogether.

Then at last the White House called; the President wanted to see
me. This was it. How would he greet me? Was I still on the team or
had I washed out in four weeks?

I walked into his office. He was sitting behind the big desk in the
oval room. He took off his glasses and looked at me sternly. It was a
bad moment. And then his whole face lighted up as that brilliant
smile leaped to his countenance. "Ezra," he said, "I believe every word
you said at St. Paul." Now he began to chuckle. "But I'm not
sure you should have said it quite so soon."

Selling

I do the very best I know how, the very best way I can; and I mean
to keep doing so till the end. If the end brings me out all right, what is said
against me will soon be forgotten,

Abraham Lincoln

He who fears criticism is hopeless. Only those who do things are criti-
cized. To hesitate for fear of criticism is cowardly. If our cause is right be
not afraid of criticism, advocate it, expound it, and, if need be, fight for it.
Critics always have been and always will be, but to the strong minded they
are a help rather than a hindrance. Take your part in life's stage and play
your part to the end.

Thomas Jefferson

A friend sent me these two statements. I copied them onto a piece
of paper and carried it in my wallet from that day forward.

This was one note in the voice of the people, a voice beginning to
be expressed in hundreds of letters and telegrams.

Apparently the writers had been stirred by the attacks because most
of the letters mentioned the charges against me. Many were written
in longhand, some in pen and ink, others in pencil, a few done in the
scrawl of the aged or infirm, and hardly legible.

They ran in a ratio of 15 to i in support of my position.

The president of the Texas Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association
said, "We have always felt there can be no satisfactory or workable solu-
tion to our problems that would substitute subsidies for a fair and open
market price. 55 Another southern cattleman: "There are some people
up there in Washington who are so concerned over us right now that
they intend to force help down our throats even if we don't want it."

72 CROSS FIRE

From ex-Governor Roy Turner of Oklahoma: "We cattlemen have
always had a feeling we could work out our own salvation."

The head of a commodity organization wrote that his people would
"prefer to go broke rather than accept government handouts."

From a man in Pennsylvania: "May I congratulate you on not
being stampeded . . . God bless you, Mr. Secretary, and may your
courage be an inspiration to other Cabinet officers."

This spontaneous outpouring of support was an encouragement and
an inspiration.

I knew now that something had to be added to my conception of
the job as Secretary.

The uproar over the St. Paul speech was a warning too loud to be
anything short of gravely disturbing. Obviously, the proponents of the
existing, irrational, do-it-in-Washington approach to farm problems had
merely been waiting for the opportunity to rise en masse against the
first attempt to introduce economic common sense into farm policy.
They weren't satisfied to continue the present program through 1954.
They were out to perpetuate and expand it.
And they were strong.

The farm bloc in Congress was solidly entrenched. They held key
positions in the Congressional committees. They could use their power
to block new legislation, and little constructive work could be done
without it. We would have to change the thinking of many members of
Congress to overcome the strategic advantages possessed by the farm
bloc. Could we marshal enough strength among other Congressmen to
gtt action?

And what about the President? True, he had just given a vote of
confidence in what I stood for. But he had also — even though jok-
ingly perhaps— raised an eyebrow about the timing of the St. Paul
speech. I had responded with a somwhat rueful grin, "Mr. President,
it's been my feeling for quite some time that the sooner we got this
whole, sordid mess out in the open, the better." Maybe he agreed with
that; maybe not.

We had not yet discussed farm policy in any detail. But it was
evident that the President expected to choose his men, give them
sufficient authority, and let them work out proposed solutions to their
problems which he could either approve or reject. This was good
executive procedure. But in the case of agriculture the strength of the
opposition and its readiness to do battle indicated that we needed the
support of a President who himself had strong policy convictions.
President Eisenhower would have been the first to admit that he

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 73

did not know fully the agricultural problem. He had a rural back-
ground, having been brought up in Abilene, Kansas; he had worked in
a co-op creamery as a boy and on the farm, too; he knew the farm
vernacular and a good deal about farm people and his heart was right.
No question but that the President would be sympathetic to a basic
farm policy along the lines we had discussed when he offered me the
job. But we'd have to sell him on the specifics and on the timing.
We couldn't expect blind support — because he's not that kind of man.

Even the President's sympathetic understanding would not be enough;
we had to have fighting support based on his own solid convictions.

And, finally, what about the people?

The reaction to the St. Paul speech from farm and city people across
the country had shown that many thought it really was time for a
change. But how deeply and how widely did this belief extend?

I had long had faith in the good judgment of an informed people,
and I believe that it sometimes pays to wait, if possible, for that judg-
ment before embarking on lasting programs.

We had the economic facts on our side, but we had to have politics
on our side too — and politics added up to the President, the Congress,
and the people.

Agriculture was at a crossroad. Either it would rush headlong down
the road of socialistic controls and regimentation — the road of "letting
government do it" — or it would turn gradually toward a kind of
freedom and responsibility, freedom to plant, freedom to market, free-
dom to compete and to make its own decisions. The latter, I was sure,
was what the vast majority of American farmers really wanted. It ap-
peared that the political momentum, however, was in the other direction.

Years of intensive propaganda had built up in the public mind a
totally false image of the price support program in effect in 1953. Years
of propaganda had pounded the public consciousness with the idea
that rigid price supports of 90 per cent of parity were needed by
agriculture; that this promoted prosperity, fostered efficiency and pro-
duced abundance; that without it farmers could not produce the
quantity and quality of food and fiber a growing economy required.

The truth, obscured though it might be, was that agriculture needed
90 per cent of parity supports about as much as an athlete needs a
strait jacket.

So one new element in our job was plain. My staff and I had to be
salesmen, political salesmen. Whom did we have to sell? The President.
The Congress. The People. Moreover, we would have to be not just
salesmen, but fighting salesmen, advocating and defending the Ameri-

74 CROSS FIRE

can free enterprise system. If this meant bitterness, so be it. If it
meant risks, the sale was worth it.

The stakes were immeasurable. Who can put a price tag on freedom
of any kind?

Almost before we could draw breath, the triple selling job got under
way— with the Congress on February 19, the President on February
20, and the people on February 21.

In 1953, the Republicans narrowly controlled both houses of Con-
gress; consequently, the chairmen of the Senate Committee on Agri-
culture and Forestry, the House Committee on Agriculture, the Senate
Subcommittee on Agricultural Appropriations, and the House Subcom-
mittee on Agricultural Appropriations, were of my own political party.
These were the Congressional leaders to whom a Secretary normally
would look for his major support. Three of the four chairmen, how-
ever, Senator Milton R. Young of North Dakota, and Congressmen
Clifford R. Hope of Kansas and H. Carl Andersen of Minnesota were
committed to high, rigid price supports.

Only Senator George D. Aiken of Vermont, chairman of the Com-
mittee on Agriculture and Forestry, saw the problem substantially the
way I did. Not only does Senator Aiken have a profound knowledge
of the agricultural situation, but coming from Vermont, a state which
produces virtually no price-supported commodities except milk, he was
relatively free of pressure by farm constituents. What pressure he might
be subjected to comes largely from the state's dairy producers who look
with marked disfavor on unrealistic price support programs tending to
increase the cost of feed grains and price commodities, such as butter,
out of competitive markets.

Senator Aiken had been one of the principal architects of the Agri-
cultural Act of 1948. This Act provided for a flexible system of support
ranging from 60 to 90 per cent of parity, depending on the supply
of the commodities under support. To me, this approach made sense.
The legislation was never permitted to go into effect.

Congressman Hope was in an altogether different position. Like
Senator Aiken he possessed a deep knowledge of the agricultural situa-
tion. A tall, thin man with a Congressional record dating back to 1927,
he, too, had had a long and distinguished career as a legislator on agri-
cultural matters. Though he had co-sponsored the Agricultural Act of
1948, high price support people had wisecracked that there was "much
less Hope than Achin' " in the provisions of that legislation.

A complicating factor was Congressman Hope's constituency. Though

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 75

the wheat program had obvious faults, it was, in the minds of many
Kansas farmers, associated with prosperity. Due to a long succession of
good weather years and heavy demand for wheat during the war
and postwar periods, wheat farmers generally enjoyed a very robust
financial position. Relating the wheat program to their prosperity, and
recalling the depression when wheat prices dropped to 25 cents or less
a bushel, producers feared anything which might rock the boat.

Although the program had been a bonanza for commercial wheat
growers at the tax payers 3 expense, there were some, of course, who
could see the handwriting on the wall — the fact that support at 90
per cent of parity was not a "support" at all but an incentive price
and a stimulus to overproduction, destroying markets and piling up
costly government stocks. But even among those who saw this, many
apparently believed it a good idea to continue a while longer with the
existing, though outdated, World War II oriented program.

Senator Young and Congressman Andersen were in pretty much
the same boat as Congressman Hope. A large proportion of the cash
income of North Dakota and Minnesota farmers came from price-
supported commodities.

As for the Democrats on these committees, most of them viewed the
existing price support programs as the handiwork of their party,
and therefore sacrosanct, especially where a Republican Secretary was
concerned. My job before the committees was to try to win over to our
side a predominandy hostile group.

Our efforts to shed light and reduce heat on the farm problem in Con-
gress, began, as I've mentioned, on the trip around the country. The day
I was sworn in, letters went to the Majority and Minority Leaders of
the Senate, to the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House, members
of the Senate and House Committees on Agriculture, and the House
and Senate Subcommittees on Agricultural Appropriations, expressing
my pleasure at being able to work with them and offering them full
cooperation.

But now we began, if I may use the expression, to woo the Congress
in earnest.

On February 19, after the heat started blowing in from the Hill,
I gave a reception in my office for the Agricultural Committees and
Subcommittees on Agricultural Appropriations of both chambers. We
served punch and cookies and we did our level best to excel in friendly
courtesy.

It was a really pleasant occasion. Two of the legislators who had

jQ CROSS FIRE

lashed out at me rather bitterly following the St. Paul speech, apologized.
They admitted a little sheepishly that they hadn't read the speech, but
had based their criticism on what they had seen in the papers or on
what others had told them. If this seemed a rather lame excuse, not
to say a peculiar way to run a railroad, I was beginning to under-
stand that politics apparently has rules all its own.

Senators and congressmen, under immense pressures to "make a
record," sometimes shoot wildly from the hip. They find the temptation
to take a short cut now and then almost irresistible and speak on the
basis of newspaper accounts rather than permit the golden moment for
a quotable utterance to pass over the horizon.

At intervals thereafter, we had luncheons, breakfasts, dinners, and
other get-togethers with the committees to become better acquainted,
talk problems out, and promote a spirit of good fellowship. No speeches,
simply informal conversation. Several long-time members of the com-
mittees said it was the first time any Secretary of Agriculture had
ever invited them to such functions.

A dairy problem gave me an opportunity to carry the selling cam-
paign to the President. The Presidency entails such vast and varied
responsibilities, requiring extensive knowledge of so many aspects of
national and international life, that the physical limitations of time
became almost insurmountable. We had to seize every opportunity of
presenting the facts to Dwight Eisenhower.

The dairy problem was simply this. The government was supporting
the price of milk and butterfat at 90 per cent of parity. Since this
was higher than the price on the open market, milk, butter, and
cheese were being purchased by and were piling up in the hands of the
government. With prices held high, consumers were eating less and
less butter and more and more margarine. The less butter they bought,
the more the government had to buy in order to support the price.
Many in the dairy business recognized this — and that it could not go
on indefinitely. Yet the industry as a whole did not want to give up
the 90 per cent support. The Secretary had discretionary authority to
set the level of price support anywhere from 75 to 90 per cent of parity
for the coming marketing year, beginning April 1. Dairymen wanted
to know as early as possible what we planned to do.

On February 20, I took the matter directly to the President, in the
first substantial conversation he and I had about farm problems.' A
Cabinet meeting was scheduled for that morning, but I asked the Presi-
dent if I might have a few minutes with him before Cabinet.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 77

"You know, Mr. President/ 5 I began, "I'm obligated to announce
the levels of price support for dairy products not later than March 31.

"The Department has been supporting milk and butterfat at 90
per cent of parity," I went on, explaining the discretionary authority to
set the level of support. "The question is what level would be best
for the coming year."

The President nodded. What did I think?

"Well, 90 per cent of parity is too high. It results in economic dis-
locations in the industry. It's pricing dairy products out of the market.
Take butter, for example. We used to consume 17 pounds of butter
per capita before the war. Now consumption is down to 8^ pounds.
And margarine has gone up from less than three pounds to nearly eight
pounds.

"My first inclination was to cut back the level of supports to the
minimum, to 75 per cent. But, as you know, we've been meeting with
representatives of the dairy industry and they're strongly opposed to
this."

The President wanted to know what the industry suggested.

"They've advocated a three-point program," I said. "First, they want
the 90 per cent level continued for another year. Second, they have
pledged to begin work immediately on programs of their own that
will require a minimum of government support and regulation. Third,
they recommend a program to promote increased consumption of dairy
products — a program that would involve cooperation with distributive
agencies and consumer groups to move dairy stocks into use."

The President's brother, Milton, and General Wilton "J err y" Per-
sons, one of his aides, had now come into the room. We discussed at
some length the dangers of continuing 90 per cent supports and the
wisdom of giving' the industry a chance to work its way out of trouble.

Well, the President said this might be a poor time to change. I agreed
that the benefits might be more than offset by the depressing effect
such action might have upon dairying and agriculture in general. We
decided to accept the industry's proposal and to place responsibility
on them to develop workable programs within the coming year.

"My suggestion is," said the President, "that you bring this matter
before the Cabinet. We all need education in this field." I did so
and all members of the Cabinet agreed to support the recommendations.
We knew this decision could have repercussions, and it did, but we
wanted to be fair to the dairymen and give them a chance to work out
a program of their own.

y8 CROSS FIRE

Next, there was another crucial speech to give. It was in Des Moines,
Iowa, at the Sixteenth Annual National Farm Institute. This institute
had become over the years an outstanding national forum. Its plat-
form had attracted presidential candidates, senators, governors, and
heads of farm organizations, as well as Secretaries of Agriculture.

I left the Cabinet meeting at 1 1 : 30 to catch a plane West and, fol-
lowing a stopover for a couple of hours in Chicago, arrived in Des
Moines at 10:30 that night in such a severe blizzard that I wondered
if more than a handful of people would turn out the next day.
The address was to be at a luncheon meeting in the Hotel Fort Des
Moines and broadcast by the National Broadcasting Company,

By noon of February 21, the weather had cleared. There was a large
turnout. As I made my way into the hotel, a delegation of pickets
met me, membeis of the Iowa Farmers Union and CIO packinghouse
workers.

They carried signs:

IKE PROMISED 100% OF PARITY,
HOW ABOUT IT, BENSON?

Noting that the price of steers in Iowa had dropped more than one-
third in less than two years, one sign read: it just don't make sense

TO SEE LOW PRICED REPUBLICAN CALVES SUCKING HIGH PRICED

democratic cows. The only way I could figure that one out was
to conclude that these "farmers" had found a way to cut the reproduc-
tion cycle of their cows down to about thirty days — we'd been in
office only a month.

At the luncheon I sat beside the Republican Governor of Iowa,
William S. Beardsley. Others at the speakers' table included Allan
Kline and Herschel Newsom, heads of the Farm Bureau and National
Grange respectively.

The hotel ballroom normally seated about five hundred. It was esti-
mated that 1200 or more persons crowded into the room and adjacent
corridors. Hundreds were standing. I was told it was the largest crowd
in the history of the Institute. Evidently, the furor occasioned by the St.
Paul speech ten days earlier had made me a controversial figure.

When I was introduced, the crowd responded with a long ovation
punctuated by loud cheers that lifted my heart and threatened to lift
the roof. Whatever the political snipers in Washington might think,
this was no hostile audience. I had never before received a more
enthusiastic and rousing ovation. But how would they feel after they
had heard what I had to say?

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 79

Having determined to make my concern for farmers and my position
on price supports unmistakably clear, I ran through a list of the actions
we had taken to stop the decline in cattle prices. Then with all the
conviction of my soul, I said:

"I believe in price supports and am under oath to give sound ad-
ministration to all . . . laws which Congress in its wisdom places upon
our statute books. The present price support laws are the combined
judgment of our two great political parties . . . But I say to you in all
sincerity, and I think you will agree with me, that price supports are
not in themselves adequate to keep agriculture strong."

Next I pointed out that farm prosperity depends on other things, too,
on national prosperity and world trade, on extensive research and
special credit mechanism and marketing, on rural electrification, soil
conservation, and other programs.

We were going to build farm programs to help farmers manage
their farms and market their products so that they would have a
minimum need for price supports. This, I said, is the practical way to
achieve 100 per cent of parity in prices and incomes for farmers.

In concluding, I said: "I love this nation. It is my firm belief that
the God of Heaven raised up the founding fathers and inspired them
to establish the Constitution of this land. This is part of my religious
faith. To me this is not just another nation. It is a great and glorious
nation with a divine mission to perform for liberty-loving people every-
where.

"Therefore, our first great challenge is to keep America strong —
strong economically, strong socially, and above all, strong spiritually.
There is no other way. Only in this course is there safety for our nation.

"I pray God that no act of mine or program I shall ever advocate
will in the slightest weaken this nation in the accomplishment of what I
believe is a God-given mandate. . . .

"Let us so conduct ourselves," I ended, "that the historian will write,
in recording our stewardship, that our successes came from releasing the
great reservoir of creative energy which is to be found in every free
man. And let him write that our failures — and he will record some
failures — were errors of the mind, not of the heart."

How did it go? Jim Russell, the farm editor of the Des Moines Register,
wrote afterward: "Mr. Benson convinced his listeners of his sincerity
and when he had concluded his address received a rising ovation from
a capacity crowd. He sold himself to his audience even though some
of those present probably differed with him politically and some said

80 CROSS FIRE

afterward that they were not entirely satisfied that he had provided
the answers they wanted. . . .

"Mr. Benson brought a great deal of feeling into his speech and in-
troduced a religious fervor to the extent one comment described it
as a 'fine sermon.' 9 '

From my staff in Washington came a telegram, full of warmth.
Prejudiced though they were, their message helped.

Before addressing any large group, I have always asked the help and
guidance of our Heavenly Father. On this occasion, I know, He blessed
me with great freedom and facility of expression.

That afternoon I enplaned for Salt Lake City for a brief reunion
with my family and an opportunity to get off by myself, away from
Washington, in the mountains and valleys of Utah.

Trouble at Home

It was rather lonely in the apartment the night I came back from Salt
Lake City. I fear I would never have made a very good bachelor.

Living alone in an apartment was a kind of solitary confinement I
hadn't bargained for. I would get up early in the morning, as was my
habit, spend a brief time in meditation and prayer, fix a simple break-
fast, and get downtown to my desk by about 7 : 30. I usually took a hot
lunch at the office or in connection with a conference or meeting some-
where in the city.

Unless I was obligated to attend an official or semiofficial dinner,
I usually left the office between 7 and 9 o'clock, either stopping at a
restaurant or, more often, going to the apartment to fix a quick meal.
Then I might work a while longer before turning in.

Some of the semiofficial dinners proved to be delightful social oases
in my lonely life. Such was a dinner late in February at the George-
town home of Bob and Martha Taft, given in honor of Senator and
Mrs. Styles Bridges. Everything about the evening was enjoyable, ex-
cept I must confess, the frequent indulgence by many of the Senators,
Congressmen and their wives in cocktails both before and after dinner.
For me the highlight of the evening was talking with Martha Taft, a
truly remarkable woman. Martha, in the 1940s, had proven to be a
highly competent campaigner for the Senator. She made an almost
unbelievable number of stump speeches, mostly but not exclusively to
women's groups. Later, as an invalid, she got around only in a wheel-
chair but she remained a loving and much-loved inspiration to the
Senator.

There were, too, relaxing family dinners with Bill and Allie Marriott

32 CROSS FIRE

and their family both in Washington and at the Marriott ranch at
Front Royal, Virginia. I could go to the Marriotts 5 at any time and
without any ceremony. Bill and Allie told me, "You must make this
your home until Flora comes, and regard us as your family."

Sometimes I would leave the office rather late in the evening and
go to Bill's. Allie would bring out a chicken pie she had fixed, and
saved. While I ate, Bill would talk or read things of interest, such as
mail that had come from business and professional people, housewives
and others commenting on the Administration. Such friends, as I've
suggested, help more than they know.

But these were exceptions. My days became so filled with activity
I begrudged the time it took to eat. In an effort to keep up with the
job, we were holding staff meetings twice a week at night.

Two secretaries worked for me on different shifts. One came in
early and left at the Department's regular closing time; the other came
in at the regular opening time and stayed later.

The pressure of work continues heavily with emergency problems
arising daily, I wrote in my diary. J only wish we didn't have to sleep.
We are making headway, however, and I am encouraged. The Lord is
blessing our efforts.

But only one week after returning from Salt Lake, I learned more
abruptly how much my family meant to me. At 2 o'clock in the morn-
ing of Tuesday, March 3, I was awakened by the telephone's persistent
ringing. It was long distance. As the operator spoke with the party at
the other end of the line, I recognized the voice of Dr. U. R. Bryner,
our family physician in Salt Lake City.

I knew at once something tragic had happened.

"Brother Benson," Dr. Bryner said, "I have bad news to tell you."

I breathed a prayer.

"Sister Benson and Barbara were in an auto accident tonight . . ,"

I cut in — "Are they badly hurt?"

"Sister Benson is still unconscious. Barbara has a broken shoulder
and some lacerations and bruises. We're sure Barbara will be all right.
And we hope Flora will be, too."

My wife and daughter, driving to the University of Utah, had had a
collision that completely demolished our car. Making a left turn, they
had almost completed the maneuver when another car approaching
from the opposite direction hit them broadside. Though our car did not
overturn, it was bent almost double by the impact. The young man

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 83

driving the other machine, beyond being shaken up, scratched, and
bruised, was unhurt.

"Shall I come to Salt Lake?"

"No, I don't believe it's necessary at this time."

"Are you sure?"

"Yes, if there's any change in that direction I'll call you at once."

"I want you to call later today in any case."

Dr. Bryner promised to telephone that evening.

I called Reed in San Antonio, gave him a report, and told him to
find out if he could go home. He left almost immediately and was in
Salt Lake in a matter of hours. In accordance with the counsel of
James: "Is any sick among you? Let him call for the Elders of the
Church; and let them pray over him, annointing him with oil in the
name of the Lord," our Ward Bishop and Reed administered to my
wife and to Barbara.

In Washington after a period of prayer, I was trying in vain to get
some rest. My mind was too full and my thoughts, of course, were
running over the years of otatr life together.

It had been a joyous, rich period. Nearly thirty-three years.

The first time I saw Flora was early in the fall quarter of 1920.
I was visiting a cousin, a neighbor, who was registered at the Utah
State Agricultural College (now Utah State University) in Logan. At
the time I was planning to come down to Logan for the winter term,
which, because of my obligations on the farm, would be only my second
quarter of college work in the more than two years since I had finished
high school. My brother Orval and I alternated college terms so that
one of us would always be available on the farm. While my cousin and
I were standing on the curb on Main Street, a girl drove by in a car
and waved pleasantly to the boy at my side. A few minutes later she
returned, repeating the greeting.

"Who's that?" I asked.

"That's Flora Amussen."

"Well," I said with the cockiness of youth, "if I come down here this
winter, I'm going to step her."

My cousin scoffed, "Like heck you will. She's too popular for you."

"Makes it all the more interesting."

A few weeks later I was surprised to see Flora Amussen in Sunday
school in our own Whitney Ward (parish), twenty miles north of
Logan, near our farm. She and another girl were weekend guests of an-
other cousin of mine who was attending Brigham Young University in

84 CROSS FIRE

Provo and had come home for the weekend. That afternoon, my uncle
asked me to take the girls for a little ride. Maybe I, in some way,
helped him make the suggestion; anyway, for the first time I was in
Flora's company and enjoying it immensely. Then and there I resolved
to get better acquainted and when next day I resumed my work on the
farm, it was with deepened interest in the coming winter term.

Early that winter Flora and I had our first date. She lived with
her widowed mother in a large three-story house, a home of culture and
refinement. The contrast between us was extreme; she owned her own
car and was actually the most popular girl in town; I was a farm boy
in the traditional blue serge Sunday suit, typically shiny in the back.
Flora went on to become a girls' singles tennis champion and a prize-
winning Shakespearean actress. She was president of the girls athletic
club and vice-president of the college student body.

But she had, and never lost, a rare graciousness that put me im-
mediately at ease, as indeed she has always been able to do for others
everywhere, whether in her home, in the drawing rooms of the wealthy,
at a picnic in the mountains, or among country people.

Our courtship withstood long absences. There was first the two and
a half year mission I spent in northern England, in Northumberland
and Cumberland Counties, next to the border of Scotland. I had in-
terrupted college to go on the mission. When I returned to Utah, I
planned to ask Flora to marry me and settle down on a farm.

Flora loved me, I felt sure, and was perfectly willing to be a farmer's
wife. But she had a deep devotion to the Church and wanted to give
part of her life to a mission as I had done. Moreover, she felt I should
finish my education and she probably foresaw how difficult this would
be if we married immediately.

So instead of marrying, she went to Hawaii and lived there for
twenty months as a missionary. We both knew that this would really
put our love to the test. We were young and so much can happen so
fast to you in your twenties. But this was one case in which absence
and infrequent letters did strengthen a love.

Just to make sure, in June 1926 I wrote Flora, giving all my latest
credits. I was being graduated from Brigham Young University with
honors, had been chosen the "most popular" man at the University
and had received a scholarship to do graduate work at Iowa State
College in Ames, Iowa.

Will you, I wrote, go with me as my wife? And when she answered
my letter, I knew I had won the only popularity contest that would
ever really count.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 85

We were married in the Temple at Salt Lake on September 10,
1926. That same day we started for Iowa in my secondhand Ford
pick-up truck. We had no money for hotels. We camped at night in a
leaky tent.

It was a big change for Flora. From a substantial monthly allowance
which she had enjoyed most of her life, she was now making ends meet
for the two of us on my fellowship at $70 a month. She could have
drawn on funds left her by her father, but her mother had had finan-
cial reverses and needed the money. Besides, we preferred to make our
own way and $70 a month seemed adequate for a young couple,
much in love, who had heard somewhere that two can live as cheaply
as one. But if there were surpluses in those days Flora and I were un-
aware of them.

We had a room in the Lincoln Apartments. Down the hall was a
cement shower which we shared with three other couples. Overhead
was a garret where we used to dry the walnuts we had gathered. But
we were gratefully happy.

How grateful Flora was for the inexpensive iron bed and the small,
cheap bureau I bought her for our first bedroom suite. After the year
at Ames, when we moved back to the farm, we worked, budgeted, and
planned to meet our obligations because we had a heavy debt on the
farm. More than once in later years I heard Flora say in telling our
children about those days: "There were times when we would just get a
cow paid for, and then we'd have to sell her to pay the doctor be-
cause one of our precious babies had arrived." She was pleased when
we brought in an electric range on the farm.

Her spirit was always the same, whether we were moving to Berkeley,
California, for my further studies in agricultural economics, with three
children and the fourth on the way, or across the nation with four
children and the fifth on the way, or back again across the continent
with the sixth on the way.

Ten homes had housed our children, and our two boys and four
girls had been born into five different homes^ in five different cities.
And then during the year I spent in Europe after World War II on a re-
lief mission for the Church, Flora cared for our six children at home,
sent food boxes to me regularly and to the Church members and never
failed to write cheerful and loving letters.

As I thought of those years of joy and happiness together, paying
silent tribute to a great soul, a perfect wife, mother, homemaker and

86 CROSS FIRE

companion, I thought how true it is that "a virtuous woman is a crown
to her husband."

Heavenly Father, I begged, spare her to me— if it is Thy will— but
Thy will, not mine, be done.

And finally I fell asleep.

Next day, I fasted and I prayed but also kept up a full round of
work. Meetings and interviews began at 8:30 and continued through-
out the morning. At 12:30, I met for lunch in the Senate Office Build-
ing with twelve freshmen Republican legislators, but ate nothing my-
self. Afterwards, I spoke to the Advisory Committee on Power for the
Southwest. From 2:40 until 6:30, I had one interview after another.

At 6:45, I attended a dinner of the Board of the Foundation for
American Agriculture at the Raleigh Hotel and addressed the group
briefly. Then I excused myself and went to my apartment to await the
promised report on my wife and daughter. "Certain thoughts are
prayers," Victor Hugo wrote, "and there are moments when, whatever
be the attitude of the body, the soul is on its knees " So it was.

At 9:30 the call came. Flora had regained consciousness. But her
memory was not clear and she recalled nothing of the accident and
was still in a serious state of shock. She had no fractures of skull or
bones. She was going to be all right. Barbara's shoulder had been set
and she was doing nicely. It was decided that I should stay in Washing-
ton; Reed was able to help at home. Mark and Lela, who were in
California at Stanford University, where Mark was working for his
M.A. degree, were also keeping in close touch by telephone from Palo
Alto.

Truly the Lord heard our prayers. As a friend, Dr. George R. Hill,
wrote, "God certainly had His arms around you and your family." It
was the longest night and day I spent in Washington.

8

Trouble in Washington

For more than one Cabinet member, Washington life was grabbing a
bear by the tail and hanging on for dear life because he didn't dare let
go. At least it seemed that way to me. It was a combination of work,
social responsibilities, meetings, decisions, politics. Pressure and hard
work were by no means new. But this position became a monster which
demanded all my time, all my energies, and asked for more.

Like all the others in the Cabinet, I lamented the inability to devote
attention fully to important issues. Patronage, membership on dozens of
committees, social events, personal attention to small localized problems
ate up the scanty supply of man hours — because they happened to be
personally important to important persons. The top men on my staff
had to devote long deliberation to such questions as whether to provide
inspectors for a certain tobacco market, or whose nominee should be
appointed to some remote field office. Wasting precious time on trivia
when so many important matters were screaming for action resulted in a
twelve- to sixteen-hour work day — and worse, a kind of desperation.

Just administering a Department can occupy all the working hours.
Paper flows across a Secretary's desk in dismaying and frustrating end-
lessness. The Congressional Record, farm magazines, and newspaper
items came to me every day, usually well-marked for quick reference. A
reading file containing a cross section of the mail and other items of
interest required daily attention. A weekly folder of press clippings from
across the country gave me an idea of the public reaction to our
initial programs and policies. Dozens of answering letters and memos
prepared for my signature had to be read, approved or rejected. Dozens
of other letters had to be dictated.

88 CROSS FIRE

Meetings devoured much of my day in huge gulps.

I had told the heads of our USDA agencies, "My door will always
be open to you, but, as much as possible I'd like you to take care of
most of your problems through the assistant secretaries.' 5 They cooper-
ated, but an open-door policy, nevertheless, brought many visitors. Meet-
ings of the policy staff (the Under Secretary, the Assistant Secretaries,
and other staff aides) were held weekly. Smaller groups met with me
often on special problems. And dozens of representatives of growers of
various commodities, reporters and writers and many others came to the
office for conferences.

Once a month, we held a luncheon with all agency heads. The
agenda included open discussion, reports, announcements and sometimes
a formal presentation of what was being done, for example, to combat
drought or promote conservation. We had regular meetings of the
Commodity Credit Corporation board, the crop reporting board and
the National Agricultural Advisory Commission, and many official
luncheons and dinners outside the Department.

In the midst of all these meetings, I sometimes thought of the late
Fred Allen's remark that a conference is a gathering of important people
who singly can do nothing, but together can decide that nothing can be
done. This, however, was only in my darker moments when conferences
were eating up important hours while a dozen pressing decisions or
actions were clamoring for attention. On the whole meetings proved
most profitable and they contributed significantly to the Department's
services.

The telephone was another insatiable beast — talking to assistants, calls
to and from the White House, the Hill, the agency heads, long distance
calls from all over the country and abroad.

And over-all, there was the constant pressure of making decisions
that directly affected the lives of thousands and even millions. In most
Cabinet posts, and especially in agriculture, few decisions are made with
adequate time for reflection, for checking all interested and responsible
parties. You do what you can, what there is time for. But it's a steady
round of decisions and emergencies; emergencies and decisions.

Early in February an International Wheat Agreement Conference of
46 nations convened in Washington. The IWA was an arrangement
through which the wheat-exporting and wheat-importing countries
agreed to sell and buy stipulated amounts of wheat within a predeter-
mined range of prices. The maximum price under the Agreement had
been $2.00 a bushel, far below our support price. The U.S. was paying
subsidies averaging 56 cents a bushel on all U.S. wheat exported through

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 89

the Agreement. The U.S. delegation had been instructed by the Ad-
ministration to negotiate an agreement that would lower costs to our
government, costs which were running to more than $125,000,000 a
year. We collided head-on with the English representatives who were
insisting that the maximum price of $2.00 per bushel be continued. We
didn't want the British to walk out as they threatened to do, but we felt
the Agreement had to be put on a realistic basis. In this we had the
support of the Canadians. After negotiations which dragged out for
eleven weeks, a maximum price of $2.05 was reached. The U.K. walked
out on the Agreement and remained out for six years before re-entering
in 1959. We never learned exactly why. A difference of five cents a
bushel hardly seemed reason enough. One complicating factor was
the death of the chief delegate of the U.K. during the negotiations.
But the British, as an important consumer market, were never too enthu-
siastic about the project.

Besides the National Agricultural Advisory Commission, we set up
a large number of commodity advisory groups.

Before acting on a problem affecting a specific commodity, we would
call in representatives from every phase of its production and marketing
to say: "This is your industry. It has some big problems and this is
what we think might be done about them. What do you think?
We want to help you find a solution. What do you recommend? What
can you do? What, if anything, should we do?"

During the first two months in office we called to Washington com-
mittees on corn, cotton, cottonseed, dairy, flax, livestock, peanuts, soy-
beans, turkeys, and wheat. We invited members of Congress to sit in.

The working schedule was usually something like this. We would
begin by laying the particular problem before the committee, together
with background information. They followed up with informal discus-
sion of whatever phases of the problem they chose. We made staff
experts available to help. After thorough discussion, the committee
usually came up with worthwhile suggestions. For example, the cotton
committee recommended industry support for legislation to promote
cotton exports. The turkey committee set out to get producers to bring
turkey production more into line with demand. The livestock committee
had the toughest problem of all, because of all our commodity head-
aches in 1953 the cattle crisis was worst.

With each passing week, political pressure to put the government into
the beef business had been climbing, almost to the point of explosion.
Fortunately, the responsible segments of the cattle industry were on our

90 CROSS FIRE

side. They didn't want us to get into the meat business any more than
we wanted in.

About a month after taking office, I was given an invitation by
Senator Pat McCarran. The Nevada Democrat was the leader of a
group known as the Conference of Western Senators, who at this time
were particularly concerned about falling cattle prices. It was to one of
the periodic luncheon meetings of this conference that McCarran had
invited me, without telling me why. Twenty-eight Senators were present,
all from the West, Midwest and Southwest, except Senators Aiken (Ver-
mont) and Ellender (Louisiana). In addition, there were a dozen non-
legislators representing the USDA, the livestock industry, and the wool
growers.

Toward the end of the lunch, Senator McCarran stood up and
without any warning to me said, "We have with us today the new
Secretary of Agriculture. I am going to ask him to tell us what he
plans to do to alleviate the hardships caused by the collapse of beef
prices."

All eyes turned. I swallowed the rest of the mouthful hurriedly and
got to my feet. Though it was clear that McCarran was deliberately
embarrassing me, I did my best. After explaining the causes of the
existing situation as well as I could, I gave a rundown of the measures
we hoped would stabilize the market. But while hoping not to seem
ungrateful for the meal or to spoil anyone's digestion, there didn't seem
to be any sense in hedging.

"We'll do everything practical to help beef producers," I said, "but
we are not going to put the government into the meat business."

Following that, several of the members went after me in vigorous
and oratorical questioning, especially Senator Robert S. Kerr, the mil-
lionaire Democrat and natural gas king of Oklahoma, who was not
only critical of our policies but quite inaccurate in his use of statistics.
(One of the members of the press once said to me, "Kerr uses statistics
like an inebriate uses a lamp post — more for support than for illumina-
tion.")

After the flow of oratory had run its course, and with McCarran
about to close the meeting, I suggested to him that we might profitably
hear the view of another guest, Sam Hyatt of Wyoming, president of the
American National Cattlemen's Association. This Association, represent-
ing 22 state organizations and well over a hundred local livestock
groups, is the largest of its kind in the nation.

Rather reluctantly, McCarran called on Sam Hyatt. I'm sure the
Senator from Nevada was sorry afterward. Sam really took the hide off

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 91

the people who had lambasted me. He ended by telling them: "Cattle-
men don't want government to get into the cattle business. We have
gone through these periods before. It is hard, but it is separating the
men from the boys. We'll work our way out. Just leave us alone."

It was one of the most effective rebuttals I have ever heard, though
I was, as might be understandable, not exactly objective.

The USDA can bring immense resources to bear on farm problems,
and we attacked this one from half a dozen angles. The black market
had cleared up when price controls and compulsory grading were
eliminated. But this was only a first step. In addition, we pushed
beef sales to the armed services.

The President reimposed a tariff quota on cattle coming in from
Canada.

We bought more beef for the school lunch program, as the livestock
committee had recommended. We moved beef abroad through the
Mutual Security Program.

Later in the year, largely because of the drought, we undertook a
vastly expanded emergency beef purchase program. We contracted to
buy some 250,000,000 pounds of beef — the equivalent of more than
850,000 head of catde. This especially affected grass-run cattle from
areas hit by the drought. This program, it should be emphasized, was
a temporary, emergency operation to help with a temporary market
glut — and we bought beef only for existing and available outlets such
as the school lunch program.

But most important of all, we cooperated with the industry in a re-
markably successful effort to market more beef. In 1952, U.S. con-
sumers ate on the average 61.5 pounds of beef per person. In 1953,
they ate 15 pounds more — 76.5 pounds — setting a new record as of
that time. The American people literally ate their way out of the beef
problem.

Cooperation was amazing not only throughout the industry but
among large beef users everywhere.

In New York City, hotels and restaurants serving over 600,000 meals
each day pledged to add an extra beef dish to their menus. In Massa-
chusetts and Rhode Island over a hundred large restaurant and cafeteria
managers made the same pledge. The Waldorf Cafeterias in the North-
east featured Salisbury steak in newspaper ads at a special low price.
The Howard Johnson chain of restaurants served special steak dinners
at 40 cents less than the usual price. The Hot Shoppes chain reduced
its prices and increased serving portions. The 187 Whelan Drug Stores
featured at their lunch counters a bigger hamburger for less money.

92 GROSS FIRE

State agencies called the lower beef prices to the attention of state
hospitals and institutions feeding over 1,000,000 persons daily. Home
economists gave the prices wide publicity.

The President put on a luncheon in Denver for livestock people,
newsmen, and others, and served as chef, providing the recipe and
supervising the preparation of his beef stew.

Yet while these endeavors helped pull farmers and ranchers out of
the cattle crisis, they couldn't do the trick overnight and for months
beef cattle prices continued slipping and sliding.

Next to beef, grain gave us some of the most urgent problems.

On taking office, some of the corn in government hands was more
than four years old, and much of it was reaching the point of going
"out of condition" as good grain.

We started a new policy (I couldn't understand why it hadn't been
done before) and we began to turn the stocks. As soon as any of the
corn in government hands approached the danger of deterioration, we
sold it and bought fresh corn to replace it. It's the sort of thing any
good businessman does. Before his stock can get shelfworn, shopworn,
or otherwise damaged, he cleans it out and replenishes with fresh
merchandise. He doesn't let part of his stock get older and older
while he continually sells off the new supply.

The purpose of the price control and storage program is to keep
excess supplies off the market We couldn't sell off government stocks
of corn at a price below that stipulated by law. But nothing prevented
us from selling old corn and buying new to replace it, since in doing
that nothing was really added to the market.

Abundant crops in 1952 and good crop prospects for 1953 made it
clear that more storage space would be required for grain. Otherwise,
with no place to store it, farmers would be forced to throw their grain
on the market for whatever price it would bring. This would have
nullified the purpose of the price support program. We moved promptly
with the most comprehensive program ever developed to increase stor-
age facilities.

We made low interest loans available to farmers who needed to
finance the building or purchase of additional bins and cribs. We
followed with a special "use guarantee" program to encourage building
of new commercial storage. These actions were backed up by new
legislative provisions under which farmers and warehousemen could
amortize the cost, for income tax purposes, over a five-year period.
Millions of bushels of additional storage space were made available.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 93

Under the use-guarantee provisions alone, more than 230,000,000 bush-
els of capacity were approved that first year.

We offered farmers the opportunity to keep in their bins, for an-
other year, 1952 loan stocks of wheat, corn, and oats. This enabled
them to earn a storage fee for holding grain on the farm a second
year. The Commodity Credit Corporation bought added storage bins
with a capacity of 96,000,000 bushels, so it could take prompt delivery
of loan stocks. Special distress loans were made available to farmers
over a wide area where — for one reason or another — available storage
was inadequate and wheat was piling up on the ground.

We were determined that farmers were going to come through the
year in relatively good shape, so far as storage was concerned.

On Saturday, May 23, 1953, in the evening shortly after 7:00
o'clock, Drs. M. R. Clarkson and B. T. Simms of our Agricultural
Research Service reached me with a report that foot-and-mouth disease
had broken out in Mexico. This is the most dreaded of all livestock
diseases in this country. We have had six outbreaks in the United
States since 1900. One of them, in 19 14, and another in 1924, each
took two years to eradicate. To catdemen, the cry "foot-and-mouth
disease" is not unlike the cry "fire" in a crowded theater.

The virus that causes the disease is so small it can pass through an
extremely fine filter. Within a week after the virus enters an animal,
fever breaks out and the creature become stiff and inactive. Blisters
show up in the mouth and on the tongue. These break and leave ulcers.
Then lameness appears, so painful that the animal alternatively keeps
lifting one foot, then another, over and over, endlessly. In its most
dangerous form, about two out of three of the animals infected die
quickly. The less dangerous forms of the disease kill only a small fraction
of the animals, but produce ruinous losses in milk production.

So fiercely contagious is hoof-and-mouth that it needs only to se-
cure a foothold to wipe out a substantial part of any country's livestock
industry. One infection can spread to a herd, to a locality, to a whole
region and throughout an entire nation.

We could not permit even one infected animal to cross the Mexican
border into Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, or California. The door had
to be slammed — immediately and tightly!

To effect this, I spent a good part of the night on the telephone
with representatives of the livestock industry, our embassy in Mexico
City, and officials of the USDA. The order closing the border was
prepared and signed by about 11:00 p.m. Next day we continued

94 CROSS FIRE

our telephone contacts and made arrangements for Dr. Clarkson to go
to Mexico City as my representative.

That first day at least 2000 head of cattle were turned back. We
didn't know whether any of these animals was carrying the disease.
We did know the stakes were too big to take any chances.

Treatment of the disease is drastic. Strict quarantine must be im-
posed on the farm, locality, or, as in this case, even the whole country
to keep carriers from moving around. Not only infected animals but
whole herds that have been exposed to infection are shot and buried in
quicklime. Infected feed and litter are burned, pens and sheds thoroughly
disinfected. Serums have been and are being developed, but in 1953,
destruction and quarantine were the best, tested ways to combat the
disease.

Such tough-minded treatment naturally met resistance. Couldn't it
be relaxed a little? Was it really necessary to kill so many cattle? During
ensuing months, Mexican and United States members of an Inter-
national Commission for Eradication of Foot-and-Mouth Disease held
numerous meetings. Invariably, our representatives came away believing
that agreement on procedure had been reached; but almost immediately
on returning home difficulties arose. The Mexican farmers, especially,
not understanding the serious nature of the disease, protested vehe-
mently against the slaughter of their infected and exposed animals.
Emotions ran so high that some farmers g&t out their guns and fired on
the field teams, and we found it necessary to move our veterinarians out
of the area. A cleanup and protective campaign that undoubtedly
could have been completed for a relatively small expense actually cost
the United States millions of dollars.

The situation was further complicated when it involved the political
fortunes of certain individuals in the Mexican Department of Agri-
culture and the relations of the State Departments of the two countries.
Arriving in Mexico City one morning on an early flight, Assistant
Secretary Earl Coke and his party immediately went to Ambassador
Francis White's office. Previously the Ambassador had been cordial.
His reception that morning was frigid. "Have you read the morning
papers?" he asked icily, and then he proceeded to translate the article
to Coke.

U. S. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE IS BOTH
INSOLENT AND IGNORANT proclaimed the headline. The story
reported that Coke had complained about the lack of cooperation by
the Mexican officials and of the difficulties the U.S. was having. The
article bore a Washington dateline.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 95

On investigation we found that a document marked "Confidential,"
which we were required by Congress to prepare monthly, had fallen
into the wrong hands, and the full and frank explanation that we had
made to Congress concerning the Mexican situation became public.
The fact that the report to the Congress was wholly correct didn't make
it any easier for Coke to negotiate with the Mexican Secretary of
Agriculture and his associates that morning.

Strained feelings were finally soothed, fences mended, and foot-and-
mouth, disease was eventually isolated and wiped out. (The border was
opened again on December 31, 1954.)

Some fence-mending of my own had become necessary in the Depart-
ment. To build good personnel relations, I had decided to make a sus-
tained effort to meet and shake hands with as many of the 9000 De-
partment employees in the Washington area., as possible, agency by
agency. This we had begun to do on the morning of February 4. Be-
cause of our full work days I scheduled the meetings for 8 : 30 a.m. to
9 : 00 a.m., a half hour before the Department normally opened for busi-
ness.

Most of my colleagues in the Department apparently enjoyed the
meetings as much as I did. But while there was no compulsion in-
volved, some whose car pools were temporarily disorganized or who
found their schedules strained by the 8 : 30 hour, considered the whole
thing indicative of my lack of understanding. Unfortunately, I didn't
learn this until the morning meetings had been under way for several
weeks. Like most honeymoons, this one required some adjustments.

This, added to the furor over the "full day's work for a day's pay"
convinced us that I had better tell my colleagues straight out what I
thought of them. In April, in a talk sponsored by the Graduate School
of the Department, that's exactly what I did. The USDA Thomas
Jefferson Auditorium was jammed. Employees were standing in the
back and in the vestibule. I was glad, because I wanted to make this
"heart-to-heart" talk to as many as possible.

"It is now a hundred days since I assumed my duties here in the
Department of Agriculture," I began. "In these hundred days, my
respect and admiration for the employees of this great Department
have steadily increased. I say 'increased,' because I want to make it
plain that long before January 20th, I had learned that this Depart-
ment stands for something special in American life — and that its em-
ployees are exceptional both in capability and in their unselfish devotion
to duty."

qQ cross fire

I would rather serve in this Department, I said, than in any other,
adding: "As I told the President, no salary in the world could induce
me to take this job. But the possibilities for service presented by working
alongside the devoted men and women of this Department — the po-
tentialities for serving the welfare of agriculture and the well-being of
all our people — these were the most important factors in my decision.

"And I want you to know this: With your support and cooperation
we are going to serve American agriculture — and this nation that we
love — to the utmost of our ability . . ."

If I were making that speech today, I would try to say it in even
more ringing tones.

The activities of the government's Departments are so big and scat-
tered, in most cases, that it takes time for a new Secretary to get to
know all that's involved. Returning in an official car from one meeting,
the chauffeur drove me through something he called the National
Arboretum. This, he said, was a fabulous outdoor laboratory of almost
400 acres on the Anacostia River, where trees, flowers, and shrubs of
many varieties were grown under natural conditions. It was in the
spring and the land, aglow with perhaps the finest display of azaleas
in the world, was a little bit of heaven.

Impressed, I asked the chauffeur who was responsible for the estab-
lishment.

The answer came in rather strained tones. "You are, Mr. Secretary."

As Secretary, I also found myself a member of several boards and
commissions including the Board of Directors of the Virgin Islands
Corporation (VICORP). This body supervises a number of govern-
ment projects in the three small Caribbean specks of land known as
the Virgin Islands. During the 1930s when economic conditions in the
islands became depressed, several government projects were launched
to provide relief for the inhabitants. These were later brought together
under a kind of government holding corporation, the Board of Directors
being the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, and others.

Imagine my dismay, as an official of the Mormon Church and a
total abstainer from liquor in any form, when I learned that one of
the enterprises in the Virgin Islands Coporation was a rum distillery.
Other operations included a power plant, a hotel, (called the Blue
Beard), and a slaughterhouse. The whole business was running in the
red, in big figures, every year.

Being in the liquor business, even thus remotely and involuntarily,

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 97

was too much for me, and I was bound that VICORP would divest
itself of the rum distillery, as well as several other enterprises. (It did.)

An even more bizarre business was the case of the money-makers.

There came one day a report that a nest of counterfeiters had been
discovered in the South Building of the Agriculture Department. There,
in one room of a branch of one of the agencies, a printing press had
been set up. Plates were found, all ready for a venture in the printing of
bogus money. This was definitely carrying free enterprise to an extreme.
With complete effrontery, this amateur mint had been set up just
across the street from the Bureau of Printing and Engraving, where
the printing of money is legitimate. The whole thing was cleaned up
in short order, on a very hush-hush basis, before it could appear in the
papers and before any money was actually printed. We had no desire
to see headlines and news stories claiming that Agriculture was reducing
the cash depletion of the Treasury by printing its own.

Also, at about this time, one of my assistants brought in a letter ad-
dressed simply to the "Department of Agriculture, Washington." Its
only identification was the postmark of a small town in Montana. The
envelope contained one well-creased thousand-dollar bill. A penciled
note, unsigned, said the money was in partial repayment of a feed
and seed loan made in the 1930s as part of an emergency program to
meet the problems of what was then a drought-stricken area.

These loans had long since been written off by the government. But
the note further indicated that the individual intended to repay the
remainder of the loan, unspecified as to amount, as soon as he was
able. A search of the Department's records failed to identify him; the
records had long since been destroyed.

The job was providing interesting contrasts. We pushed ahead with
the further reorganization of the USDA. We streamlined the Soil
Conservation Service to increase its usefulness and efficiency in con-
servation efforts. We set up an Agricultural Marketing Service and an
Agricultural Research Service. We established a Foreign Agricultural
Service to help in the development of foreign markets.

We proposed the transfer of the agricultural attaches from the De-
partment of State to the USDA. These attaches, the nation's ears and
eyes in foreign trade and foreign market development, should represent
U.S. agriculture abroad and work closely with U.S. traders. We felt
they should have a good background of experience in agriculture. There
was some criticism that under State, the agricultural attaches were
serving the U.S. foreign service more than U.S. agriculture.

Meanwhile we were, of course, keeping a weather eye on what effect

98 CROSS FIRE

these activities produced both at the White House and on Capitol
Hill. New officials are on trial; and the reports were that of all the
Cabinet nobody was more closely scrutinized than Secretaries Wilson,
Dulles, and Benson. It's all too easy for a new Cabinet officer to be
caught between the President and the Congress, much as a grain of
wheat is ground between the upper and nether millstones. In recent
years, this had happened with increasing frequency in the USDA. It
has always been true, however, that a Secretary proposes, but someone
else in government disposes.

No Cabinet member is likely to be a hero to a Congressional committee.
That's one of the facts of Washington life that became clear in the first
year.

No doubt this stems in part from the difference in the way the Con-
gress and the Cabinet get their jobs. Congressmen are elected; the
Cabinet member is appointed. Congressmen pride themselves on know-
ing politics; a Secretary may be politically a babe in arms. Congress
has passed the laws under which the Cabinet officer runs the Depart-
ment for which he is responsible; sometimes a new member of the
Cabinet thinks the laws should never have been enacted and need to
be changed. Congress doesn't like the implication that it didn't do a
good job.

For these reasons and many others, a Cabinet member, however
important he may be in his own Department, is soon shown he is not
the boss in a Capitol Hill hearing room.

In my case some special factors may have been operating, too. The
leaders of the farm bloc, coming almost entirely from the Midwest
and the South, may have been hoping for and even anticipating a
Secretary of Agriculture from one of those two areas — someone who
would "understand" the farm problem. Neither of the two preceding
Secretaries hailed from either region; Brannan came from Colorado,
Anderson from New Mexico. This was partly what I had in mind
when I mentioned to Eisenhower that it would be better for him to
appoint a Midwesterner rather than to bring in a third successive
Secretary from the West.

The first time I appeared before a Congressional committee, I sensed
immediately a belief on the part of some persons on the committee
that I perhaps did not fathom agriculture's basic problems. No doubt,
this was also among the reasons they tried so diligently and persistently

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 99

to make me commit myself either for or against rigid price supports. To
many members of the committee, the principles of price support pro-
grams seemed to be held with some of the fervor ordinarily reserved for
religious beliefs. The theory of high rigid supports was a tenet, a dogma,
of their farm faith. When they called me before their committees, it
was somewhat as though I were a potential heretic, called before an
ecclesiastical court for examination of beliefs.

If this had not already been impressed upon me, it could not have
failed to register after a hearing before the House Subcommittee on
Agricultural Appropriations on February 25, 1953. Though we had
been in office only 35 days, some members of the Subcommittee were
determined to pin the Administration to the wall on price supports.
This we couldn't afford. We needed time to think out improved policies
and programs. At this juncture, we could do no more than reiterate
the President's position: to faithfully carry out the law existing until

1954.
After I had completed my prepared statement, Chairman Andersen of

Minnesota moved in quickly.

Andersen: I am interested in knowing exactly what we might ex-
pect during the next four years in holding flax, for example, and corn,
wheat, oats, barley, and rye, at a near-parity level. Do you think that
our Administration will be willing, if necessary, to continue these 90
per cent supports on such storables?

Benson: I feel they will be willing • • . to continue supports at
whatever level seems to be in the best interests of the farmers . • .

Andersen: Have you any information you can pass on to this Sub-
committee as to your possible action on butter supports? Have you an-
nounced anything on that? I personally think you should continue the
90 per cent price support program on butter.

Benson: We have not made any announcement, Mr. Chairman. We
are just finishing our study of it. I hope we will have some announce-
ment before the end of the week. We have been studying it very care-
fully, as you know. It is the first really major decision that the new
Secretary is required to make.

Maybe Congressman Andersen was merely softening me up. Now an
expert needier took over. He was the Hon. Jamie L. Whitten of Mis-
sissippi, aggressively energetic, a one-time school principal who had gone
on to become a district attorney and a Congressman since 1941.

Though he was a member of the minority party on the Subcommittee,
Whitten dominated the hearing. In his best prosecuting attorney man-
ner, he began to cross-examine.

100 GROSS FIRE

Whitten: . . . You say if the Congress were to write firm supports
that you would carry it out. Since I have been here, the Department
recommends. You would not ignore it if we adopted legislation, but
the question is, what are you going to recommend?

Benson: I am not sure that we are ready to make a recommenda-
tion on legislation to supplant the present legislation when it expires
... I would like to have a little more time to see how the present pro-
gram is going to work. We are going to try and make it work, and I
would like time to study it in operation before I make any recom-
mendation to this committee or the Congress for any changes . . .

Whitten: ... I heard you say that you had endorsed the present
firm price supports. I have read your statements rather closely, was
interested in them, and all I ever read was that you had agreed to
carry them out while they were still the law. I have not seen any
endorsement of what is written in the law or any expression of sympathy
for them. What I read in one of your two major speeches, perhaps at
St. Paul, was that you felt that we ought to have something to take over
just before disaster struck.

Benson: I did not say just before disaster struck, but to prevent it.

The Congressman from Mississippi pounced on that.

Whitten: What was your expression there? I would like to have it
here in the record so we can clarify these things. If you did not mean
it, I will be glad to hear you say so.

Benson: I think I meant what I said, Mr. Congressman, just as I
mean what I say now.

Whitten: I would like to have the paragraph on disaster included
in the record at this point. . . .

Andersen (returning to the attack) : Let me quote for the record
this short statement that Mr. Whitten desires. Quoting from Mr. Ben-
son's speech at St. Paul: "Price supports should provide insurance
against disaster to the farm producing plant and help to stabilize
national food supplies; but price supports which tend to prevent produc-
tion shifts toward a balanced supply in terms of demand and which
encourage uneconomic production and result in continuing heavy sur-
pluses and subsidies should be avoided. Our efforts should be to reorient
our present national policies and programs so that they will contribute to
the development of a prosperous and productive agriculture within our
free-enterprise system."

Benson: That is the paragraph, I think the only one in which I
used the word 'disaster' and that is from the policy statement —

Whitten: — At the risk of being taken to be critical . . .

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER IOI

Benson (silently to himself) : Now there is the patriarch of all un-
derstatements.

Whitten: I have yet to read what you really believed in, in a
practical, concrete, down-to-earth way, nor what we could count on in
your efforts to do these things ... I wonder if it would be proper and
fair to ask these other gentlemen, Mr. Morse, Mr. Short, Mr. Davis,
and Mr. Coke, whom you brought into the Department, if they are for
firm price supports for basic commodities . . .

There was a brief pause, perhaps for breath.

Whitten (continuing) : I will ask- the Secretary — do you know
whether these other gentlemen you have got here on your side of the
table are for firm supports or flexible support prices?

Benson: I am sure they are all for the present legislation, Con-
gressman.

Whitten: For it until it dies a natural death or for its continuation
until and unless you come up with something that gives better as-
surance to the farmers?

Benson: We are for it as long as it is the policy of the Congress,
naturally, and then we are studying the matter and hope that we can
develop something that will be even better than that program. And I
think I might add that from what experience we have had with the
present program, we feel probably there is a need for some flexibility;
either that or an extension of the controls of other commodities. It
certainly is not working in some instances the way it is.

Whitten didn't want to hear my testimony; he wanted to bicker.

We ran into much the same tactics appearing before the Senate Agri-
culture Committee in March. The ranking Democratic member, Sena-
tor Allen J. Ellender of Louisiana, was also a one-time DA.

Ellender: From this statement you are now making, may we not
assume that you are against any rigid fixed price supports as they are
now contained in the law and effective until December 1954?

Benson: I have said repeatedly that I expect to carry out the law
a hundred per cent.

Ellender: I understand that, but that is not the question I have
raised. I am asking you whether you have not already made up your
mind that you are against rigid price supports after 1954?

Benson: Senator, I have very serious misgivings about rigid price
supports as a continuing thing. But my mind is still open. I hope it
will always be open. If rigid price supports is the best program for
any commodity, then I will support that program. But I have not

I02 CROSS FIRE

reached the point where I am ready to admit that rigid price supports
are the best program for any particular commodity.

In view of the ideas concerning rigid price support already expressed
elsewhere in this book, these various dialogues might give the impression
that I was dissembling. This was not the case. I didn't know at that
time what kind of program we were going to recommend. I had no
intention of trying to shape our coming program alone. Our recom-
mendations would depend on what was forthcoming from the Agri-
cultural Advisory Committee, from the hundreds of farm leaders
throughout the country we planned to consult, from the President him-
self, and, importantly, from my own convictions.

I did know that we were committed to carry out the law in
effect until the end of 1954- That we would do to the limit of our ability.
That was what I meant — that and nothing more — when I said I "en-
dorsed" the existing program. I endorsed it through 1954, because the
President had given his pledge and this was the position of the Eisen-
hower Administration. What would come after 1954 I could not say
because, frankly, I didn't know.

My personal commitment to the President was for two years' service,
but there were signs that I might not be around that long.

One of the things about the Congress is the unique way politics enters
into all relationships. It used to be said of Ty Cobb that no matter
who his friends were off the playing field, he regarded everybody on
the other team as his enemy on the diamond. It's a little like that with
the Congress. Outside the hearing room all is cordiality. But once
members of opposing parties face each other across the table, politics
prevails over friendship.

Any proposal by a Republican is apt to be suspect by the Democrats,
and vice versa.

Coming before the Senate Subcommittee on Agricultural Appropria-
tions, we recommended reductions in the Department of Agriculture's
budget for fiscal 1954. Strong opposition immediately sprang up from
Democrats Russell and Ellender but also from Republicans Young and
Mundt. It was hard to understand why the Senators should insist on
providing more funds for operating the Department than we felt we
needed. But they did.

Despite our efforts to hold the appropriations to $703,700,000 as
urged by the President's budget, both the House and Senate Subcom-
mittees came out for increased appropriations. The House Subcommittee
recommended $712,700,000, the Senate Subcommittee raised the ante to

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER IO3

$716,700,000, and before the matter was finally ended, we were given
$718,400,000 to run the Department.

This was still some $30,000,000 less than had been recommended by
the outgoing Truman Administration.

We found ourselves fighting an uphill battle to push through Con-
gress a reorganization plan for the Department. The reshuffling of
agencies I made immediately after taking office, which did not require
Congressional action, was merely a preliminary step. A broader reorgan-
ization was to be proposed by the President to the Congress. It pro-
vided for additional Assistant Secretaries plus authority to make a
logical consolidation of activities within different agencies.

Many of these activities had been assigned to this or that agency on
a kind of Topsy basis, with a lion's share going to the Production and
Marketing Administrations. Our reorganization plan was very similar
to one sent up to Congress in 1951 by Secretary Brannan. Brannan's
proposal had been rejected.

On March 25, the President forwarded our plan to the Congress.
Members of my staff had already visited key people on the Hill to
explain the plan and why we needed it. Unless rejected by either
the House or the Senate, the plan would automatically become effective
early in June.

The leading opponents of this bill were Senator Richard B. Russell
in the upper chamber (surprisingly, since Russell had seemed to favor
the reorganization when we had talked in Atlanta), and Congressman
L. H. Fountain of North Carolina in the lower. Contending that a
similar plan had been offered by President Truman and rejected be-
cause it placed too much authority in the hands of the Secretary, they
urged defeat of the bill on grounds of consistency.

I longed to remind them of Emerson's phrase that foolish con-
sistency is "the hobgoblin of little minds," but I knew it was politics,
not consistency, that bothered them. Our plan to reorganize the De-
partment was based on a detailed, non-political study completed long
before I became Secretary, on the recommendations of a Committee
on Government Organization set up by President Truman.

But with Senator Russell proclaiming that he was "unwilling to buy
a pig in a poke" and Senator Olin D. Johnston of South Carolina
stating, "I believe Congress is certain this is too much arbitrary power
to give any Secretary of Agriculture no matter how much we trust
the individual," it appeared for a time that the plan might fail, partic-
ularly in the Senate. We had valuable help, however, from Senator

104 GROSS FIRE

Margaret Chase Smith, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Gov-
ernment Organization, Senator Aiken, and other Republicans, and from
another Senator who knew the Department's needs, Clinton P. Ander-
son.

On April 15, I went up to see Congressman Clare E. Hoffman of
Michigan, Chairman of the House Committee on Government Organi-
zation. The staff told me, "You'll find Hoffman pretty cantankerous
and hard to get along with." Naturally, it was with some misgivings
that I went to see him about the hearings scheduled for April 28. We
talked awhile and then he suddenly said, "Mr. Benson, I think I'm going
to cancel the hearing unless other members of the committee insist on
having it. I'm for your plan."

Nevertheless, it still looked like a close verdict, one that could go
either way.

The first test came a few weeks later, when Senator Russell proposed
to the Senate a resolution to reject the reorganization plan. Senator
Russell's resolution was soundly defeated (by a vote of 46 to 29). The
late Senator Langer of North Dakota was the only Republican to
vote against the reorganization, along with Senator Wayne Morse,
listed at that time as an Independent, and 27 Democrats. The Admin-
istration was supported by 35 Republicans and 1 1 Democrats.

A rejection of the plan by either chamber, however, was all that was
needed to kill it. Congressman Fountain moved such a resolution in
the House. He was beaten even more soundly, 261 to 128. Representative
H. R. Gross of Iowa was the only Republican voting against the re-
organization plan, while 56 Democrats supported it.

Winning these battles did little to endear us to the opposition. No-
body enjoys defeat, particularly those on Capitol Hill.

Early in May, South Dakota Governor Sigurd Anderson and Con-
gressman Harold O. Lovre came to the Department. They demanded
that I release corn held by the government so that hard-pressed cattle-
men could reduce their feed costs. Here was an instance where a pro-
posal that seemed entirely feasible on the surface proved on sober
analysis to be completely impractical. It illustrates the vast complexity
of operating farm programs so as to be fair to all farmers.

We had seriously studied this possibility before Anderson and Lovre
came in and knew it just couldn't be adopted.

"Gentlemen, we want to do everything we can that is legal and truly
helpful to assist the cattle industry," I explained. "But under the law

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER IO5

I cannot release this corn except at a price stipulated in the legislation.
Otherwise, we'll be depressing the market for corn.

"And that isn't all. Suppose there were some legal way to do this —
and, believe me, there isn't — what would be the result? The dairy-
industry, the poultry industry, every agricultural industry that feeds
corn would be after us to grant them the same privilege. What would
happen to the corn program then? It would simply cease to exist."

Other disadvantages of this proposal, I pointed out, were that it
would increase total output of beef, aggravating the current adjust-
ment problem. Moreover, it would be very difficult to determine pre-
cisely which feeders might be eligible to receive the corn, and probably
even more difficult effectively to police such a program.

Though Governor Anderson and Congressman Lovre left my office
far from satisfied, they could see the logic in our position.

We kept trying to deal pleasantly with those with whom we had to
work on agriculture's problems. In mid-March, Senator Milton Young
and I had a very friendly meeting. In April, with members of my staff, I
went to a dinner at the Cosmos Club where we talked about farm mat-
ters with Congressman Hope and leaders of the farm organizations. Later
that month I lunched with Hope, Herschel Newsom, and other farm
leaders. Early in May I met with 35 freshman Congressmen to talk about
farm problems.

During the conference with Milton Young, the Senator was so af-
fable and cooperative I found myself believing he might eventually go
along with the Administration after all. Was I wrong!

That same month he publicly warned that any attempt to lower
price supports would touch off a bitter battle. "They'll have a real
fight on their hands if they try to lower them," he said.

In May, he accused me of attacking price support programs en-
acted by the Congress. My actions, he said, appeared to be in conflict
with the public statements of President Eisenhower. I replied that our
intention was not to repudiate the present price support program but
to go on searching for something better.

Later Young was quoted as saying, "If Benson sticks by his
previous policy pronouncements . . . there will be no hope for the
Republicans winning the farm vote in the 1954 elections."

From the Democratic side of the aisle, Senator Robert S. Kerr of
Oklahoma continued to demand price support under live cattle. Senator
Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota implied that we were following a
"starve-'em-out" philosophy of "forcing small farmers out of business
for the benefit of the big commercial producers."

106 CROSS FIRE

And judging from the Heatings of Harold D. Cooley of North
Carolina and Jamie Whitten of Mississippi, that high rigid price sup-
ports must be continued after 1954, one would have thought this pro-
gram as inviolable as the Ten Commandments.

Naturally, farmers were concerned about the continuing decline in
prices, yet I found no prevalent fear of disaster among them as I
traveled around the country. There was much more alarm in Congress
than in the Corn Belt, more among the politicians than among the
producers. The critical Congressmen, however, managed to raise enough
dust so that a number of articles appeared asserting that; "Farm Prob-
lems May Hold Key to Elections in 1954." Even though they were
many months in the future, to the political mind election time is always
now.

Let me say, however, that these remarks about relations with in-
dividual members of the Congress must not be construed as an indica-
tion that I had or have little regard for the legislative branch. On the
contrary, it is my belief that the Congress, above all, has made con-
stitutional government work in this country; moreover, the Congress,
rather than the courts, is the first line of defense of the Constitution.

Great statesmen have sat on Capitol Hill during my lifetime, the
greatest of all, in my opinion, being Senator Taft. Other Republicans
for whom I learned high respect included Senators Styles Bridges of New
Hampshire, Everett Dirksen of Illinois, John W. Bricker of Ohio, Bill
Knowland of California, and Barry Goldwater of Arizona. Senator
George Aiken of Vermont impressed me with his grasp of agriculture,
but was too liberal for my taste in some other areas. Among the
Democrats, Harry Byrd of Virginia, Frank Lausche of Ohio, Spessard
Holland of Florida, and Clinton Anderson of New Mexico (in agricul-
ture), and Strom Thurmond impressed me. Lyndon Johnson of Texas
quickly stood out as one of the most capable legislators of all in his
ability to lead men; but it was hard to tell just where he drew the
line between politics and principle.

In the House there were several with whom I worked closely that
I held in high regard, especially among the newer members. 1 My
relations with Congressional committees other than agricultural were
uniformly harmonious. Though I attempted little forecasting, it was
easy to see that a Cabinet member was apt to be a prophet without
honor in his own committee.

iDague, Pennsylvania; Belcher, Oklahoma; Schwengel, Iowa; Mclntire, Maine;
Dixon, Utah; Budge, Idaho; Smith, Virginia; Herlong, Florida; Hagen, California;
Alger, Texas; and others.

"Everything Seems to Be about Patronage"

Lincoln's biographer tells of a woman who came to our sixteenth Presi-
dent demanding, not asking, a colonel's commission for her son. She
lectured the President sternly. "Sir, my grandfather fought at Lexing-
ton, my father fought at New Orleans, and my husband was killed at
Monterey." Lincoln replied, "I guess, Madame, your family has done
enough for the country. It is time to give someone else a chance."

Lincoln liked to tell, too, about an unkempt office seeker who after
pestering the Secretary of State unsuccessfully for a consulate in Berlin,
then Paris, then Liverpool, continued asking for lesser and lesser posts.
When eventually he was refused a job as clerk in the Department of
State, he asked finally; "Well, then will you lend me five dollars?"

At times as we struggled with such headaches, I wished that the Al-
mighty would lend me some of Lincoln's rich humor. It was difficult to
muster up.

During the first months of 1953, the Cabinet and even the President
felt to the point of frustration the pressure of political patronage.
Republicans in Congress and the Republican National Committee, be-
sieged by thousands of job-seekers and with many applicants for every
vacancy, sent would-be officeholders to all government agencies in
droves.

This happens whenever the political complexion of the government
changes. Actually the political factor was far less influential during the
1950s than it had been during the 1930s. Henry A. Wallace, Roose-
velt's Secretary of Agriculture in the '30s, had a staff assistant whose
function was to ascertain the political convictions of all applicants
before their employment papers were put through. This applied even
to the lower-salaried positions. In contrast, the only political screening

I0 8 CROSS FIRE

we did in the USDA concerned a few high salaried appointments.

To strike a proper balance between political necessity and defense
of the career system is not simple. Our government is a political entity.
Its policymakers should have a considerable party responsibility. A
new administration must be able to choose enough players for its team;
otherwise, it cannot give the electorate the type of government they
voted for.

As Secretary, I wanted, and was certainly entitled, to select my own
economic adviser. This meant displacing Secretary Brannan's economic
analyst, Dr. Louis H. Bean. A statistician of note and a long-time career
employee of the Department, Dr. Bean had for years been closely as-
sociated with the Democratic Party. He was famed as the political
prognosticator who had predicted President Truman's victory over
Governor Dewey in 1948. Obviously Dr. Bean did not fit into the
picture as my principal economic adviser and I cannot conceive that
he would have wanted to serve in that capacity, our two points of
view being so widely divergent. But he happened to be out of the
country when we were setting up shop and when my choice of Dr.
Don Paarlberg as economic adviser was announced. Office space on the
second floor of the Administration Building is always at a premium,
and new members of my staff moved in. Dr. Bean found himself on
his return to be a man not without a country or without a job but a man
temporarily without a place to hang his hat. He was upset, and under-
standably.

We transferred Dr. Bean to another position in the Department at
the same salary as he had been receiving, but not too long thereafter
he decided to retire.

Another cause celebre arose out of our decision to provide new leader-
ship for the Rural Electrification Administration.

REA had long been dominated by Clyde Ellis, the politically minded
head of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. Moreover,
the REA Administrator's job held by Claude R. Wickard, a former
New Deal Secretary of Agriculture, was politically sensitive. I had
known Wickard for years; our views on the role of government in agri-
culture differed widely. I asked Wickard to come to my office and, as
diplomatically as I knew how, broached the subject of his resignation.
He replied that he had been appointed by President Truman for a term
that still had some years to run and he assumed he would serve out
the full term. I indicated that since the Administrator of REA legally
works under the direction of the Secretary of Agriculture, I assumed

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER IO9

that the Secretary should be expected to suggest to the President his own
choice for this office.

While matters were thus temporarily at stalemate, Wickard and I dis-
covered we occupied neighboring apartments in the Westchester. It be-
came a little embarrassing to run into each other every now and then
at home. But Claude and I really liked each other, despite our political
antipathies. Recognizing perhaps how he would have reacted, if he had
been in my shoes, he decided to resign and Ancher Nelson of Minnesota
was appointed REA Administrator.

Our government is a political entity, but it is also a continuing
structure. We cannot start over with entirely new personnel every time
the political complexion changes. In the Commodity Credit Corporation,
for example, we had a very technical program to administer, with huge
responsibilities devolving on the personnel. These could not be carried
out by new men lacking in training and long experience without expos-
ing U.S. taxpayers to tremendous losses and good men to dislocation. Ex-
cept for a few top positions, therefore, we initiated no changes in the
personnel of the Department. We had to abide by Civil Service regula-
tions; but even apart from this obligation, for moral as well as adminis-
trative reasons, I insisted that we should not lose the valuable experience
of capable, long-time employees.

To help the Adrninistration make the necessary personnel changes, a
new position classification, known as Schedule C, was established.
Schedule C positions were outside the Civil Service; their occupants
could be appointed or dismissed without respect to Civil Service regula-
tions. All strictly policymaking posts were to be placed in Schedule G.
Our personnel people were instructed to examine the situation to deter-
mine which positions were truly policymaking. This was interesting.

Every government position has a "job description" to justify its ex-
istence and grade. Every kind of task that a person in a certain position
might conceivably be called upon to perform is included in the descrip-
tion, usually in that remarkable jargon known as governmentese. If an
employee receives incoming telephone calls from someone in a Con-
gressional office, this sometimes becomes "maintaining liaison at the
highest level" with the "Congress and other high policymaking of-
ficials." Other locutions are similarly impressive. In going over the job
description of his secretary, one of the top men on my staff remarked
with a horrified smile, "It looks like she does everything I thought 7 was
supposed to do."

When we discovered in one USDA agency alone upwards of five
hundred positions listed as "policymaking," we decided this method of

HO CROSS FIRE

determination was not quite foolproof and we abandoned it. Yet among
all the Department's tens of thousands of employees, we placed less than
a hundred positions in Schedule C — and for some of these we initiated
no changes.

This problem of patronage probably exasperated the President more
than any other during the early months of his first term. He seemed
to think it unimportant compared with other demands on his energies.
It was the bad penny that kept turning up again and again in Cabinet,
in discussions with his staff and with Congressmen, and especially with
the Chairman of the Republican National Committee. Throughout the
entire first year the President grumbled periodically that "patronage
wasn't going to save the country." In large measure this was unfortunate.
A better job could have been done by the Eisenhower Administration
with a more complete realization of the importance of constructive
changes in policymaking personnel.

At one Cabinet meeting early in May, when Leonard Hall, the new
Chairman of the National Committee was present, Eisenhower tried to
set an Administration course on this subject. He made it clear that he
wanted Hall to try to handle this problem so that Republican Con-
gressmen would not be hounding the Secretaries and agency heads. He
laid down the law that there was not going to be any "spoils system" in
the Administration. We were to let Len Hall know about vacancies in
our departments so that the National Committee could make recom-
mendations; but as President, he didn't want Cabinet officers coming
to him with complaints that members of the National Committee were
insisting that So-and-so be appointed to Such-and-such a job. Persons
recommended by the Committee should be given consideration, but on
the same basis as others.

At this meeting Hall had ample opportunity and he exercised it, to
express his views on the uses of patronage to build up the Republican
organization in preparation for the coming Congressional elections in

1954.

This, of course, didn't end the discussions because it didn't solve the
problem. A month or so later the President protested at Cabinet that
some Republicans were still throwing patronage in his lap again and
again, and he didn't like it.

Secretary Dulles spoke up, saying what most of the Cabinet was
probably thinking; that we were doing our best to cooperate with Con-
gress and the Committee, but that we couldn't run our departments on a
patronage dispensing basis.

During the summer Hall kept bringing the subject up. At one staff

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER III

conference at the White House he intimated there weren't half a dozen
Congressmen who owed the Administration any thanks for what it had
done in this field. The Department of Agriculture, I know, was in the
National Committee's doghouse.

My attitude was characterized by some as uncooperative and un-
realistic. To try to iron out our differences, John H. Davis, Romeo
Short, Earl Coke, and I met over lunch with Len Hall, and Bob
Humphreys of Hall's staff. The specific problem was to outline the best
procedure for selecting state agricultural committeemen. These were ap-
pointee positions under the Secretary of Agriculture. It was our belief
that these state committees, like the county ones, had been used for years
by the Democrats to help win elections. We wanted no more of that.
President Eisenhower had campaigned on a pledge to take the com-
mittees out of politics — to me that meant Republican as well as Demo-
cratic politics. But we were under terrific pressure in this matter from
both sides of the Congress.

The Democrats wanted us to leave the committees, as previously
constituted, alone. The Republicans wanted us to clean house of all
Democrats but to keep the committees safe for Republicans. In con-
science I could not go along with this extreme position. We reached an
agreement at the luncheon for handling appointments at the state level.
It satisfied me, and partly satisfied Hall, but it still left quite a lot of the
Congressmen unhappy.

We did everything we possibly could to screen appointments of state
committeemen to make sure that we had qualified people who would
be a credit to the Administration. In practice this meant qualified Re-
publicans — but not political hacks. The measure of our success is the
fact that two of the state committeemen appointed, Marvin McLain
and Clarence Miller, later distinguished themselves as Assistant Secre-
taries of Agriculture. Others also rose to high, responsible positions. As
for appointments to the Department itself, the trouble was that too
many qualified persons were available for the same jobs. Many of those
recommended seemed to be highly qualified and those that we were able
to accept served the Department well.

Of course, we also received a few recommendations not so much for
the purpose of properly staffing the Department as to reward "deserving
people." Some of these the sponsors themselves had not bothered to
check out. A very influential Republican Congressman sent me a letter
praising warmly a "deserving" constituent and expressing deep interest
in our placing him in a high-salaried spot. One of my close staff associ-
ates knew this man. Not only was he a lifelong Democrat but he had

H2 CROSS FIRE

been an almost scandalously incompetent state official. We called the
Congressman's office and explained the situation. There was no argu-
ment. One of the Congressman's assistants simply said, "Okay, take
him off the list." This was an instructive, if ridiculous, exception to
the general rule.

Equally outlandish was a letter to me from a "farmer' 5 who described
himself as a part-time poet. He had a specific request — he wanted a job
nmning an elevator in the Senate Office Building. He reasoned that
with the Congress in session only about seven or eight months of the
year, there would be ample time for writing poetry. This arrangement,
he said, would provide support for him and, at the same time, make
his genius available to the country. A sample piece of poetry was en-
closed; it did not, in the parlance of the day, send me.

The patronage problem finally almost caused the President to hit the
ceiling.

He came to Cabinet one day in the fall prepared to chew everybody
out. He had had another bout with Hall the day before and he told us
about it with acidulous vigor. We could tell by the way the red crept up
his neck that he meant it when he said he was sick and tired of being
hounded about patronage. He had had it — period. He gave it to us so
hot and heavy that when he brought the meeting to a close, he muttered
darkly, but half-apologetically, "Everything seems to have been about
patronage this morning."

Whether because that storm cleared the air or, more likely, because
time eased the pressure, patronage problems soon diminished, though
they never quite disappeared.

Speaking Out

Special Delivery
Secretary Benson
Department of Agriculture
Washington, D.C.

Dear Ezra:

We note that you favor "letting the Lord handle the farmers' prob-
lems." Their prayers will be for faith, hope and parity.

This column in a Midwestern newspaper illustrated how much work
we had to do.

It was one thing to know the facts ourselves but quite another to get
enough of the people throughout the country to see the road down

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER II3

which shortsighted programs were leading us. If there was to be intel-
ligent revision of the price support laws ending in 1954, the people had
to know and to be heard. To reach the people we had to undertake a
vast project — almost a crash program — of public education.

The way I saw it, the best way to do it was by old-fashioned word-of-
mouth salesmanship and personal contact, to go before farm people and
talk directly to and with them, let them see us to counteract the constant
barrage of criticism being hurled by our opponents.

Accordingly, I undertook a back-breaking schedule of speeches, tele-
vision and radio appearances, articles in newspapers and magazines, and
press conferences. Fortunately, the farm populace seemed receptive.

Following St. Paul, Des Moines, and Chicago talks, I spoke at a
National Press Club luncheon in Washington. This is one of the most
valuable forums for a public official. It is something like a mammoth
news conference with all the leading lights in the Washington news
corps in the ballroom on the 13th floor of the National Press Building.
You speak to a roomful of perhaps 400 to 500 persons for about 20
minutes; then written questions are presented to you for another 20 to
25 minutes. This one luncheon can do much to make or break a man or
woman new to public life. It is a forum much sought after by presidential
candidates, or anybody else desiring to put himself or his ideas in the
national public eye. All I will say is that on this occasion the Lord
blessed me richly in answer to my fervent petitions.

In April I went to Denver to address the National Farm and Ranch
Congress. The original plan had called for a luncheon meeting for about
300 in downtown Denver. But larger accommodations had to be found.
More than 3000 farmers, ranchers, and other interested people came
to the Stockyards Stadium at the National Western Show Grounds for
this noontime meeting.

"A little more than two months ago," I reminded them, "the new
Administration took over responsibility for guiding the destiny of the
United States. The mandate from the people was clear. For twenty years
the government has been under other management."

When we examined our inheritance, I said, we found that we had
acquired a number of thorny problems. Like many another heir, we
found the house mortgaged and a good deal of damaged furniture
stacked away in the attic. Then I pointed to some of the items in our
Democratic Truman legacy:

A dollar that was worth only 50 cents in buying power; a national
debt of over $285,000,000,000; a decline in prices of farm products, es-

114 CROSS FIRE

pecially beef; high farm production costs; high family living costs; high
costs of marketing farm products; price supports that were putting farm
products into storage rather than into stomachs, that were losing farmers
their normal markets.

Positively, I listed what we were doing to solve these problems and
to provide greater economic opportunity for farm people in an atmos-
phere of freedom and with a minimum of government control and
regulation.

Speaking in the open was a little difficult because my voice bounced
back from the surrounding structures and I had to pause after each
phrase. Moreover, the twittering of the sparrows overhead was picked
up by the microphones. Nevertheless, it appeared that this speech was
heard, judging by the outcries of our political opponents.

A litde later, I went to Cleveland, Mississippi, for the 18th annual
meeting of the Delta Cotton Council. That morning Senator James O.
Eastland took me to his home and around his 5000-acre plantation to
inspect his Hereford cattle and 2000 acres of cotton.

In mid-morning we left the farm and drove into town for a news
conference followed by a luncheon of barbecued chicken and spareribs.
Then it was time for the speech.

On this very hot day, people filled the auditorium and thousands
gathered outside to listen over the public address system — about 20,000
persons in all.

The same Senator Eastland who three months before had accused me
of pulling the rug from under farmers now introduced me as a man who
would go down in history as "one of our greatest Secretaries of Agricul-
ture."

"My friends and neighbors," the Senator shouted, "today you're going
to hear something you won't like, but it will be good for you because
it's the truth."

I could hardly believe my ears.

The speech, called "We Shall Not Bury the Talents," took its title
from the parable of the talents in the Gospel of St. Matthew. We sought
to make the point that to stand still and do nothing about improving
the farm programs was to imitate the servant who had buried his
talent in the earth, thus meriting the anger of the master.

John H. Davis had suggested a theme: the existing farm programs
did not give the farmer too much, they gave him too little. They didn't
build markets to put products into use at fair prices. They failed to pro-
vide adequate incentive for self -initiative and self-help. They priced cotton

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER II5

and wheat out of world markets. They held a price umbrella over
synthetic and substitute products which then took over our markets.

After the meeting when Senator Eastland was being complimentary,
I looked him in the eye and gave back to him some of his own introduc-
tion. "If you will go through the South telling people the same things
regarding the farm program that you said this afternoon, you will go
down as one of the great agricultural statesmen of your time."

"Maybe so/ 5 he replied, "but I wonder if I'd last beyond next
November."

A few days later, it was Deadwood, South Dakota, for a speech be-
fore the South Dakota Livestock Growers. The Association had arranged
for an old-fashioned four-horse stagecoach to take me out to the fair
grounds. When the coach pulled up at the hotel, I asked the driver if
I could sit with him. "OK," he said. Then I asked if he'd let me take the
lines. He looked me up and down. "You ever driven a team?" "Oh,"
I said, "a few times." So he handed over the four-horse reins and I
drove the team out to the fair. As we entered the grounds, I loosened
the lines and let the horses — and they were a fiery set — run at full speed
around the track and back to the platform in front of the grandstand,
to the obvious delight of the audience and probable terror of the driver.
No matter how poor the speech might be, I had established myself with
this group.

The talk, called "Land of Promise," developed the idea that for many
years farmers and ranchers and their organizations had been seeking a
kind of promised land for U.S. agriculture.

But for five years farmers had watched the buying power of their
net income slide downhill, until the purchasing power of farm income
in 1952 was lower than for any year in the preceding decade — with the
sole exception of 1950, a war year. "Is this," I asked, "the road to the
promised land?"

Then, striking at the concept that the existing price support program
was the best and only program and that tampering with it was tanta-
mount to rewriting the Ten Commandments — "To me, it is rank de-
featism to accept the present inadequate price programs as the best that
free men — free Americans — can develop."

Another early speech was made to the National Conference of Chris-
tians and Jews at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City, at a
dinner honoring Clarence Francis, a prominent Catholic layman and
one of the outstanding leaders in the food industry.

Having known Clarence Francis for many years, it was a simple

Il6 CROSS FIRE

matter to pay a warm and deserved tribute to his life and work. Then
I spoke on how grateful we should all be for the blessings God had
showered on this choice land, how we needed to rededicate ourselves to
His service, remembering that when we are serving our fellow men we
are serving God; and the need for a true spirit of brotherhood. A
couple of days later a letter from Mr. Francis closed with this post-
script, "Since hearing you in New York the other day I have had the
strangest feeling that I wanted to leave my nets and go be a fisher of
men." There was kindness everywhere.

While in New York for this occasion, I had the great privilege of
meeting and talking again with ex-President Herbert Hoover and
General Douglas MacArthur. President Hoover expressed keen interest
in our plans for the reorganization of the Department of Agriculture
and warmly praised our humble efforts in Washington. I recall thinking
as we parted, "Here is a grand character, a true American, and a valued
friend; the stuff that has made this country great." Later in the year
Hoover gave the reorganization plan a good boost by announcing his
endorsement of it to the press.

My visit with General MacArthur in his apartment on the thirty-fourth
floor of the Waldorf Towers was an equally inspiring half hour. He
spoke as straight as he stood. It had been my understanding that he was
not given to praise, so it surprised me to hear him say, "The position
you have taken is the most refreshing thing that has come out of the
Eisenhower Administration thus far.

"You are the one member of the Cabinet," he continued, "who has
made your position clear. Nothing you could do could possibly make
a greater contribution to the welfare of this country. Not only have you
stood for principle, but you have emphasized spirituality, and that is a
thing that is sorely needed in America today."

He seemed reluctant to have me leave, and as we walked to the door
he put his arm in mine and assured me again of this admiration for the
principles I was advocating. "Stand firm for the right," he said, "re-
gardless of the efforts of many politicians who are guided by political
expediency rather than principle. If I can help at any time, I'm at your
call."

It was the sort of thing only General MacArthur could do without
seeming sanctimonious and completely out of character. And it was
pleasant to hear such nice words. As Chauncey Depew said about com-
pliments, it's good to get some of them while you're alive; better to
"have the taffy than the epitaphy."

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 117

If I could have foreseen that as Secretary I would make thousands
of speeches; that about 350 addresses would be distributed widely
through USD A channels; that thousands of other speeches would be
delivered informally, from notes or impromptu, the thought might have
terrified me.

Or if I had been told that to make these speeches and attend the
multitude of meetings to which a Secretary of Agriculture is urgently
invited, Fd travel more than 600,000 miles — equivalent to 25 times
around the earth at the equator; hold 78 Washington news conferences
and many more than that outside of Washington; and participate in
hundreds of TV programs and radio broadcasts, certainly I would
never have believed it.

In this and the years that followed, I addressed groups in every state
in the Union, in several of the provinces of Canada as well as in more
than 40 other countries; in Missoula, Montana, and Moscow, Russia;
in Chicago and Cologne; in Washington and Warsaw; in Austin, Texas,
and Aalborg, Denmark; in Topeka and Tokyo; in San Francisco and
Stockholm; in Hershey, Pennsylvania, and Helsinki, Finland. There
were speeches to audiences of 15 or 20 individuals in small informal
meetings and to many thousands gathered around open-air platforms.

One of the largest audiences was at the National Plowing Contest at
Eau Claire, Wisconsin, in September 1953. State police estimated that
between 60,000 and 65,000 persons were there. Twenty thousand cars
were counted on the fair grounds. From the open-air platform, one
could see row upon row of faces in a throng of humanity that seemed
almost endless. The people were seated on the ground, which sloped
upward from the platform making a natural amphitheater. Though a
brisk wind was blowing, the sound coverage proved excellent and the
attention and interest of the crowd were all one could ask for.

In all speeches, I tried to give the audiences straight facts and what
seemed to me sound philosophy. If this pleased them, well and good; if
it irritated them, at least it gave them something to think about.
Farmers don't like a wishy-washy bending to every political wind.

The character of a speaker has an impact upon his audience over
and above the effect of his words and ideas. Once when I had finished
speaking in a small Western town, a farmer came to the stand to shake
my hand. As he turned away he said to a companion, "I don't have
the schoolin' to know whether he's right or wrong, but I'm willing to
trust him."

The more contact one has with the people of this country, the more
evident it becomes that they will respond to straight talk. While en-

Il8 CROSS FIRE

deavoring to be very clear that we would do everything to help farmers
that was economically right and fair to the country, I said bluntly that
we would not resort to nostrums or quack remedies. These could end
by doing only harm to agriculture. Agriculture would never be put on
the auction block by me, and I was sure that farmers were not for
sale to the highest political bidder.

We struck particularly hard at the misconception that high price sup-
port had caused the high prices during the war and postwar foreign
aid period. These high prices were due to war, and the insatiable de-
mands of war. No political party, and no administration, should attempt
to take credit for high wartime prices unless they are also willing to take
the responsibility for the bloodshed and agony of war.

When I say "we," I want to write frankly about a subject concerning
which there is much misunderstanding.

Most people know that the majority of the formal addresses made by
public officials, and indeed by many business and professional people, are
"ghosted," written by someone other than the person delivering them.
This is often condemned.

A public official makes two kinds of speeches: informal and formal.
He soon learns the wisdom of this little verse.

// you your lips would save from slips,
Five things observe with care:
Of whom you speak, to whom you speak.
And how, and when, and where.

Speaking informally or in a press conference, I could express myself
knowing that I was, first and foremost, talking for Ezra Taft Benson
as a member of the Eisenhower Administration. My remarks might be
quoted in the papers, or I might be heard over radio and TV — but it
was generally recognized that in those instances I did not necessarily
represent the carefully documented approach of the USDA. These talks
were mine — completely.

Even so, we went out of our way to protect against inadvertent errors.
At times, these cautions became funny. For example, in May I was
invited to extend greetings to a luncheon meeting of the American
Warehousemen's Association at the Shoreham Hotel. To my surprise on
walking into the lobby of the hotel, I found my picture on an enlarged
placard announcing me as the featured speaker at the luncheon.

Knowing from my own experience with headlines how easily totally
false impressions can be created out of impromptu speeches, I began by

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER II9

saying, "I see some of my friends of the press here. I want them to know
that anything I say that in any way reflects on any man, woman, or
child, living or dead, is off the record."

On the other hand, a formal speech, made as Secretary, and read
from manuscript, is entirely different. Most of these addresses were
largely ghost-written. If they had not been I simply would not have been
able to give them. Here's why:

In the years as Secretary of Agriculture I averaged one formal speech
or statement a week. These were United States Department of Agricul-
ture documents. They expressed more than my thoughts; they rep-
resented the current Department's point of view.

Now that is a rather staggering thought. The USDA was established
in 1862. It is a century old. It is a continuing organization.

When the Secretary makes a formal speech, he speaks not only for
the Office of the Secretary but for the Department, for the people in the
agencies, the branches, and the bureaus. Thousands of men and women
working in them were there long before I came, and they are still
there now that I have left.

This type of speech requires painstaking care in formulation. The
accuracy of the Department is at stake, the prestige of a branch of the
U. S. Government on the line.

I count myself extremely fortunate in having had the assistance of
devoted public servants to help me prepare these documents. The writer
who helped me prepare most of my formal speeches did the same job
for Secretary Brannan and before him, for Secretary Anderson. We
had a clear understanding: He was not to be asked to prepare any
political documents, and if he thought an assignment overstepped the
line he was to tell me so and feel free to refuse to accept it.

I say this with deep appreciation : So far as I can recall the "ghosts"
in the Department never once placed me in a position where I had to
confess to an inaccuracy of fact.

To say that my formal speeches were ghosted, however, does not mean
that I had little or nothing to do with their preparation. On the con-
trary, I did a great deal to make the final draft mine. The procedure:

First, we weeded out the invitations. Not in the early days, but later,
word sometimes came from the White House or the Republican Com-
mittee or someone in Congress that accepting this speech or this social
invitation could help build good public relations. Len Hall: "If you
could accept, it might do us some good." Sometimes I'd phone the
White House and ask Ann Whitman, the President's secretary, or Sher-
man Adams. "Could you find out from the Boss how important he

120 CROSS FIRE

thinks this one is?" Sometimes I'd ask Flora for an opinion because she
often had a good idea of which events might be meaningful and which
were frivolous. But usually, I just made up my own mind. And if we
had something planned, especially involving the children, I'd usually
make my regrets.

Once an invitation was accepted — we could accept less than 10 per
cent — someone was assigned to prepare a first draft.

The correspondence between the person inviting me and my executive
assistant was made available to the writer as well as whatever back-
ground material we had on the organization, the type of meeting, the
kind of audience, and the general approach I wanted to adopt. I often
dictated in advance the ideas I wanted to be included.

The ghost took it from there for the first draft. He had the responsibil-
ity for contacting the agencies which might be expected to provide
material or background for the occasion. A good ghost knows whom to
contact for the material he requires. He may request either that his
sources in the agencies prepare some rough material on a certain aspect
of the speech or that they relay to him basic suggestions.

The occasion, for example, could be a talk before a national fruit
and vegetable group. Our fruit and vegetable people in the Agricultural
Marketing Service would provide background on the problems facing
the industry, the outlook for the future. The research section of the
Marketing Service would furnish material on marketing research proj-
ects of interest to this audience. The Agricultural Research Service
would do the same on production research and the development of
new uses for fruits and vegetables. The Foreign Agricultural Service
would provide material on exports. The Institute of Home Economics
might be asked to contribute material covering recent developments with
respect to fruits and vegetables in the American diet.

Then, because a speech by the Secretary is almost never devoted ex-
clusively to just one segment of agriculture, it would probably be neces-
sary to include material on the general agricultural situation — farm
income, average prices received and paid by farmers, the legislative
picture, and so on.

Armed with this widely assorted material the ghost would draft a 12
to 14 page double-spaced typewritten statement. This would be far
more than a mere joining together of the material he had received. He
might not use one-tenth of what had been provided; he might discard
all of it; or he might draw heavily upon it. But whichever might be the
case, he must always try to "make a cake" with it, blend it, use it to
develop a particular theme.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 121

Twenty copies of the mimeographed first draft were then circulated
to the staff, the agencies, sometimes to the White House. I would take a
copy home for detailed work. Sometimes I would discard the draft or
revise it extensively; other times I might make only minor changes.

After the return of these drafts with comments, suggestions, and
criticisms, a meeting would be held. We would consider the comments,
accepting this and rejecting that; then we would go through the speech
word by word for detailed suggestions, deletions and additions. The
decision regarding any change was always mine.

The draft would then be revised and returned to me for a final O.K.
Sometimes, it was necessary to have a second speech meeting and to go
through the revised draft in the same way as the first.

With the speech finally approved, it would be returned to the writer
for a cover page summarizing it. This was done to help the press. The
speech was then typed in large letters on 5" by 8" "reading cards 55 and
sent to the plant for multilithing. With the return of the big-typed
cards, I would go over them very carefully, marking words for emphasis,
places for pauses, and spots to ad lib. I ad libbed very extensively in al-
most every address, except those timed for radio and TV. In these I
usually concluded with an ad lib of 10 minutes or so after going off the
air. Sometimes I would work on a speech en route, in fact right up to
the time of dehvery.

Speech-making, then, was regarded as an immensely important part
of my job, and we prepared for it in many ways.

Ofttimes, if the occasion merited a major address, a member of my
staff would travel ahead of me to check on the general situation, TV
and radio coverage, and contacts with the press. On my arrival, he
would fill me in, warn me against local pitfalls, and point out items for
emphasis.

The speaking trips were rugged. I carried an office with me, in a
briefcase. Immediately on boarding the plane, work would begin: going
over the speech, reading documents, correspondence, scouring marked
articles in newspapers or magazines, sometimes working on drafts of
future speeches. I would dictate or jot down notes on policy, programs,
and procedures to be acted upon on returning to the office. Occasionally
I'd meet on the plane a friend, a representative of one of the farm
organizations or someone else who wanted to confer. I've held news
conferences while flying at 16,000 feet over the farms of the United
States.

I enjoy speaking, having done a great deal of it in my Church. An
audience is never just a crowd. Normally I would much rather speak

J22 CROSS FIRE

impromptu than read and I liked to begin every talk with words of my
own and to end in the same way, speaking directly to the people with
conviction. The American people are a wonderful audience for anyone
who approaches them in that way. Certainly they have been most kind
to me.

Whatever success I have had is due to the receptivity of our people,
and to the goodness of God. I am proud to say that I always pray before,
asking the guidance of our Heavenly Father and petitioning Him to
give me inspiration.

My biggest problem is a tendency to speak too long. I have never
really learned the lesson of brevity. I know but never profit by the story
of the orator who showed up for a speech to find only two farmers in
his audience. He got up on the platform and said something about not
wanting to take the time of these two gentlemen. Before he could step
down, however, one of the farmers said, "Wul, now, when I call my
hogs and only two of 'em come I don't go off without feedin' 'em."

So the orator unburdened himself. For ninety minutes. When he
finished his presentation he looked down on his twosome. "What did you
think of it?"

"Wul, now, like I said," came the reply, "when only two hogs show
up, I feed 'em— but darned if I give 'em the hull load."

In view of the extensive preparations, it is obvious why a Secretary, at
least this Secretary, needed a ghost. Had I attempted to write all
formal addresses myself, I would either have had to curtail their number
drastically or make speech preparation my major activity as Secretary.

Though accepting all the help I could get in speech-writing, when
I took the platform it was no ghost talking. But some of those, especially
in my party, often acted as if they had seen one.

10

A Sad Drought, a Sad Death

The President was a man who sought counsel. He didn't have all the
answers and he knew it. In this respect, Eisenhower and Roosevelt, the
two Presidents I've worked for, were opposites. Roosevelt always
seemed to feel he knew all the answers. When a question about beef,
hogs, or grain came up in the advisory committee, Roosevelt would
likely as not settle it on the basis of his experience in Dutchess County,
New York, where they grow apples and Christmas trees. He didn't seem
to want advice unless it agreed with his own opinions. But Eisenhower
did.

I have already mentioned the February 20 discussion about the dairy
problem. During April in another long conference, we went over the
farm income situation, price supports, surpluses, and even rather deeply
into the legislative possibilities of a revised program.

"I'm very much interested in this subject," the President remarked.
He promised to give attention to several memoranda I had brought
along. While he did not say so specifically, I felt sure that he was be-
ginning to see that a serious mistake had been made during the political
campaign when he had let himself be talked into making the Kasson
pledge.

It meant that surpluses could build up faster and faster and higher
and higher, and we could do nothing before 1955 at the earliest about
removing the price incentives helping to create them.

Without this pledge, we would have been free to suggest changes at
once. Nor was there any convincing reason, other than the pledge, why
this shouldn't have been done. No one is under obligation to con-
tinue a bad law. The Republican 83rd Congress had the same right to

124 CROSS FIRE

change a farm law enacted by the Democratic 82nd Congress, as the
Democratic 81st Congress had to change the farm law enacted by
the Republican 80th Congress (which in fact it had). In economics
as in medicine, the time element can be critical; the successful removal
of a cancer depends on early diagnosis and treatment.

"Our problem, Mr. President," I explained, "is to comply with cur-
rent laws and at the same time regain lost markets and avoid heavy
losses to taxpayers, which could end by discrediting price supports of
any kind." He agreed that this was the nut of the problem. The question
I had to answer was how to crack it.

We discussed the possible political penalties and the President said,
"Ezra, maybe you and I don't know much about politics, but we'll learn
together. My philosophy about it is simply this . . . doing what's right
is the best politics."

Social and semi-official functions gave the President opportunity to
further his "education."

In mid-April, at his invitation, I went to the Gridiron Club dinner at
the Statler Hotel. The Gridiron dinner is a traditional Washington
institution in which public officials are put on the griddle for some good-
natured roasting. Before the dinner a reception was tendered the Presi-
dent, the Cabinet, and other government officials and it gave me op-
portunity to have a very pleasant few minutes with the Chief.

A couple of weeks later an off-the-record dinner was given at the
Burning Tree Country Club by the ten new Republican Senators in
honor of Senators Taft and Bridges. The President, Mr. Nixon, and all
the Republican Senators attended and we had some fine fun and fellow-
ship.

Then early in May the President gave a luncheon at the White House
for the Cabinet and the state governors. Late in May the President
honored us by attending a luncheon and tour of the Agriculture Re-
search Center at Beltsville, Maryland. The meal consisted mostly of
products developed by agriculture research. At its close the President
spoke out for more research in agriculture.

Though it does not seem to be well understood, Eisenhower's desire
to have the best counsel he could get was one of the reasons for his
stag dinners. He always seemed to take a special joy in gathering around
him some eight to a dozen persons and making for the solarium on the
White House roof where he could broil steaks on a charcoal grill.

His first letter of invitation read like this:

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 125

June 24, 1953
Dear Ezra:

I wonder if it would be convenient for you to come to an informal stag
dinner on the evening of Monday July Sixth. I hope to gather a small
group of about a dozen, and I should Uke very much for you to attend if
it is possible for you to do so.

Because of the informality of the occasion, I suggest that we meet at
the White House about half past seven, have a reasonably early dinner,
and devote the evening to a general chat. While I am most hopeful that
you can attend, I realize that you already may have engagements which
would interfere. If so, I assure you of my complete understanding.

I shall probably wear a white dinner coat, but a cool summer business
suit will be entirely appropriate.

With personal regards,

Sincerely,,
D.E.

The Honorable Ezra Taft Benson
Secretary of Agriculture
Washington, D.C.

He had these dinners not so much because he wanted a social eve-
ning but because he wanted to bring a group of what he considered
successful men together in an informal atmosphere where he could
draw them out and get their judgment. He'd throw questions at a
mixed bag of guests; a couple of church leaders, a labor leader, two
or three persons from industry, business, or education, plus one or two
from his Cabinet.

Sometimes he would have dinner served in the State Dining Room
and then his guests would accompany him to his study on the second
floor of the White House, a gorgeous oval room, decorated in gleaming
white and adorned with a number of his trophies. There they would sit
around in a big circle and talk just as at any other house party.

The President as the host guided the conversation, and though he'd
respond to questions about the war or would join in talk about sports,
he wouldn't permit the conversation to stay indefinitely on neutral sub-
jects when he wanted to switch it over to some subject of immediate
interest. He wanted an expression of opinion.

Gradually I learned something else about these dinner conversations.
The President would also use them to get over his point of view — to
explain why he viewed his Administration, in the beginning, as one
dedicated to the restoration of quiet confidence in the government, of
helping the nation get over the jangled nerves of the Truman years.

At this first stag dinner that I attended agriculture was represented

126 CROSS FIRE

by Allan Kline, Herschel Newsom, and myself. The other guests in-
cluded a number of prominent industrialists and businessmen. That night
we talked mostly about national defense, foreign trade, and agriculture.

The President is an outgoing man but he didn't like all the Washing-
ton social life. He tried to hold his participation to a minimum. In one
of the early Cabinet meetings, I recall his saying, "The average Wash-
ington cocktail party is a tool of the devil." He said that during the war
his job and the job of the American fighting man had been complicated
by the vast amount of military information divulged at parties. Both
in war and in peace, he said, the cocktail party was used by our enemies
to elicit information from indiscreet loudmouths, information they
couldn't obtain in any other way.

One of the links between the President and me was his brother. I
worked closely with Milton Eisenhower on plans for the USDA reorgan-
ization. We had several conferences on this at the White House with
members of the President's staff, my staff, Milton and I threshing out
reorganization plans. Milton seemed to be a tower of strength to his
brother in the White House and because of his vast knowledge of agri-
culture and government was also helpful to me. He was unobtrusive but
available, seeking the good of the country. Dwight Eisenhower is re-
ported to have said proudly that Milton was the brains of the family,
that he's the one who should have been elected. The President certainly
used him not only for advice but for trying out ideas. Milton would
listen and say very little while the President went through his mental
workout. Then he would very dispassionately make a few comments.

Again and again I took agricultural problems to the White House, as
a reporter and as an educator; that's the way the President wanted it.
Fm sure of that, because otherwise he'd never have devoted, as he did,
what other members of the government probably considered a dis-
proportionate amount of time to agriculture.

It's been said that Eisenhower didn't do his homework. If that is true
about some fields of government — and I don't say that it is — I know
that it is not true of the farm problem. The President knew almost
nothing about it in early 1953. But he observed and he listened and
before the year was out he not only knew the problems, he had firm,
well-reasoned convictions about how to solve them.

Some men are content to tackle a problem academically. Eisenhower
wanted to see it and feel it, get it into his hands as you crumble a bit
of soil between your fingers. Nothing showed this more than his reaction
to the droughts.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 127

Large sections of the country in 1953 were suffering from drought,
the fourth consecutive year in some areas. By June it had reached
disaster proportions, and I went to Lubbock, Texas, in the heart of the
afflicted area, to tour the region by car.

Conditions were appalling. It tore my heart to see the distress of so
many families. The condition of the land and the economic consequences
of the drought were far worse than I had been led to expect. But the
spirit of the people was something to make one marvel. They were still
full of fight and dry humor, too.

One old, raw-boned cowboy came up after a meeting. "Mr. Sec-
retary, I'm mighty glad to meet you. I just want to tell you that down
where I'm ranching it's so dry our water is only 22 per cent moisture."

Not all the farmers and ranchers were as good-natured. While I
was in Lubbock a group of people, dissatisfied with our efforts, held a
rump session to demand that the government provide free feed to cattle-
men, along with other benefits. They held their meeting in a stadium-
type building covered with a tin roof. This happened to be one of the
hottest June days I have ever endured and it was awful to imagine the
temperature inside that building with the hot Texas sun beating down
on its tin roof. I wanted to go before this group and explain our prob-
lem and the reasons for it, but my advisers strongly counseled against it.

I went anyway. As though it were not hot enough already, the TV
and photographic people brought in their equipment, and with their
lights focused on the speakers 9 platform, it was almost literally hot as
Hades. I took off my coat and tie, loosened my collar, rolled up my
sleeves and did my level best to tell this group what we were trying to
do and why. I spoke off the cuff for a while and then answered ques-
tions from the audience. I don't know how many were brought over to
our side, but a large number came up afterward to shake my hand. I
heard later that even those who remained unconvinced that ours was
the best program were persuaded at least that we were trying to do
what we thought was right.

From Lubbock, we flew to Austin where we were met by Governor
Allan Shivers and other state officials, as well as some livestock people.
My son Reed had come up from San Antonio. The Governor invited
us to dinner and then had his chauffeur drive us to San Antonio. Here
we were met at 11 p.m. by five delegations of farmers and ranchers.
We talked with them until about one o'clock in the morning.

Before leaving Governor Shivers in Austin on June 27, I suggested
to him the wisdom of proclaiming a day of fasting and prayers for rain.

128 CROSS FIRE

On returning to Washington, I could not rest until I had described
to the President the dire need that existed. He immediately approved an
allocation of $8,000,000 of emergency funds for use in the drought
area. He also began making plans to go see for himself.

On June 30, Governor Shivers telephoned me in Washington to say
that San Antonio had had more than two inches of rain.

He or someone else also sent me an item from a Texas paper. It read:

BENSON REALLY HAS 'CONTACTS'

Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson apparently has contacts
that are literally out of this world. When Benson left San Antonio on
Sunday he promised south Texas farmers and ranchers immediate
drought aid.

Less than 24 hours later it rained for the first time in months.

Early in July I accompanied the President, Senator Lyndon B. John-
son of Texas, and some of the President's staff for another tour of the
drought region. In Amarillo, Texas, we were met by the governors of
the six drought states as well as by a large delegation of citizens. The
governors were, in addition to Shivers of Texas, Dan Thornton of
Colorado, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Edward F. Arn of Kansas,
Johnston Murray of Oklahoma, and Francis Cherry of Arkansas.

At the Herring Hotel in Amarillo, we held a two-hour conference at
which I outlined the actions we had taken and our plans for the im-
mediate future. Governor Shivers referred to the earlier visit in ex-
tremely complimentary terms, remarking that he had never known a
relief program to have been put into effect so quickly and effectively as
ours.

After meeting with the governors, the President addressed a gathering
of about 3000 farmers, ranchers, and townspeople in the Municipal
Auditorium. The place was filled to overflowing, with people standing
in the doorways. Although no such meeting had been scheduled the
President talked for about ten minutes. "I was born and raised at
both ends of the Chisholm Trail," he said, "in my youth cattle was
in my blood . . .

"I do not come here with any formula. I do come to assure you
that the head of the Federal Government is not concerned merely with
Washington and New York City, but is concerned with the whole United
States of America and with every man, woman, and child."

The President explained that a drought aid bill was being worked

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER I2Q

out by the House and Senate and he announced "that bill will be ready
for signing tomorrow morning.

"We are anxiously studying your problems and we do not look on
you as recipients of charity.

"I find no unanimity of opinion as to what can be done," the Presi-
dent said. "Whatever is to be done let's do it now. Let's not wait until
the last cow dies." The talk brought cheers and roars of approval from
the assemblage.

We did act immediately. Hundreds of counties in the six drought
states were declared "disaster areas." Farmers and ranchers thus be-
came eligible for special goverment aid in the form of emergency credit
and feed supplies. We made available government-held feed stocks at
reduced prices. Hundreds of railroad cars filled with corn, oats, and
wheat, and thousands of tons of cottonseed meal and pellets were
shipped into the region.

We obtained agreements from the railroads for a 50 per cent reduc-
tion in freight rates on feed shipped into the area by the Commodity
Credit Corporation. Legislation to provide special disaster and livestock
loans was enacted. When an emergency situation developed with great
numbers of lower grades of cattle thrown on the market because of lack
of feed, we bought large quantities of beef for distribution at home
and abroad.

These recurring droughts, and the contrary problem of frequent
floods in many parts of the country made it very clear that water was
one of the nation's foremost, long-time agricultural problems. Water was,
and is, a problem clear across the land.

We recognized that we needed to build a strong defense against too
little water and meet more adequately the challenge of too much.
Water, or the lack of it, had become a foremost limiting factor in our
agricultural and national progress.

One of the plus values of the drought trip was the opportunity to
"sell" agriculture to the President and his staff, not by talking to them,
but by showing them some of its problems firsthand.

Whether this whetted his appetite, I don't know, but toward the end
of July the President wanted to discuss the farm legislation we might
recommend in 1954. When I explained that we had in motion an ex-
tremely comprehensive study of the entire question, he seemed pleased
and asked to be kept informed. He said he couldn't quite understand
the attitude of some members of our party who seemed to be able to
see nothing but more high supports as a program.

!g CROSS FIRE

The Administration received a hard blow that summer. Eisenhower
in the White House and Taft in the Senate had developed a degree of
teamwork that many observers had feared would be impossible in view
of the scars left by the bitter fight for the Republican nomination a year
earlier, Taft saw in Eisenhower a President for whom the people enter-
tained a remarkable affection and in whom they had almost unlimited
confidence* Eisenhower saw in Taft the most effective Senate leader in
a generation. Perhaps, as some have said, it was a relationship that
could not have long continued, in view of the personalities of the two
men and the divergencies within the party. For those first months, how-
ever, it was practical and efficient to have an Eisenhower for President
and a Taft for a kind of Prime Minister.

In April 1953 the Senator golfed with the President in Augusta,
Georgia, A photograph taken of the famous twosome on the links of the
Augusta National Golf Club showed Taft, who was sometimes care-
less about his dress, in a shapeless pullover sweater and a floppy white
hat. He looked like Bob Taft. Two months later he looked more like
walking death.

Taffs illness struck with paralyzing suddenness.

Not long after the Augusta visit, Taft's left hip began to pain him,
becoming progressively worse so that in May he went to Walter Reed
Hospital for a check-up and tests.

On May 23, he was released, but he must have known then that he
was a doomed man. On June 3, he returned to the Senate — on crutches.
One week later, on June 10, he turned the Senate floor leadership
over to Bill Knowland of California and hobbled out of the chamber
where he had known so many triumphs.

Early in July he entered the Memorial Hospital in New York where
he underwent an exploratory operation. On the night of July 30, the
newspapers headlined TAFT IN A COMA AND FAILING RAP-
IDLY. Next morning, shortly before noon, he died.

Among the finest tributes paid this gallant uncomplaining fighter was
that written by one of his biographers, William S. White. "He laughed
more in the last two months than he had in any ordinary year of his
life." He did it to keep Martha from worry and depression.

The President, it was reported, went to Mrs. Taft in her home in
Georgetown and clasping her hand in his, paid his antagonist of a year
ago this capsule eulogy: "I don't know what I'll do without him. I
don't know what I'll do without him."

Shortly before the Senator died, I had a good visit with my distant
kinsman. He encouraged me to fight hard for more freedom in farm-

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 131

ing and, rather wistfully, expressed a desire to be in the thick of that
battle. His presence would have made a vast difference.
The day Taft died I sent the President this letter:

July 3h 1953
Dear Mr. President:

I know how deeply you feel the loss of Senator Robert A, Taft. It has
been a great blow to all of us. I myself have felt it keenly, perhaps with an
added measure because of the blood relationship.

„ . . Senator Taft rendered a great service as your leader, not only in
the Senate but in both Houses of Congress ... I have the very distinct
feeling that there is at present no adequate replacement . . . Most tragedies
in life are not without some compensating blessings when approached coura-
geously and with faith. It is my hope and belief that despite the loss of so
valuable a man there will come an increase of unity and party solidarity.
It is my conviction that we have in you one who has already proven himself
more than equal to the task of fulfilling the manifest destiny — that all
things happen for the better; that whenever able hands are laid aside, new
and stronger ones replace them.

Faithfully yours,

Ezra Taft Benson

And he replied:

August 1, 1953
Dear Ezra:

Of course I shall make no attempt to tell you how deeply I am touched
by the very great understanding and generosity of your note.

I am profoundly thankful that Senator Taft lived long enough that
he and I could establish what became, as I am sure he would have agreed,
much more than a mere political cooperation. For a number of weeks before
he was confined to the hospital, there developed a relationship between us
which, on my side at least, was regarded as a satisfying friendship. Indeed
only about ten days before his death, I called him at the hospital and
had with him a very cheery conversation centering around various of our
political problems, but giving room also for an exchange of more personal
sentiments,

I agree completely with everything you say about the gap that he leaves
in our leadership structure; all of us will have to work very hard to fill it.

With warm personal regard,

Sincerely,
D.E.

On August 3, the Justices of the Supreme Court, the Cabinet, govern-
ment officials, members of the armed services, and ambassadors met in
the Capitol at 1 1 : 30. At five minutes before noon we marched into the
Rotunda for the Memorial Service. It was a short but truly impressive

132 CROSS FIRE

ceremony. The U. S. Marine Corps Band played the "Battle Hymn of
the Republic." After an invocation, Senator John W. Bricker eulogized
the life and labors of his deceased fellow Ohioan. Then a benediction
and the National Anthem. No television, no radio, little formality, but
a deep sense of loss. With the President of the United States and Mrs.
Eisenhower in attendance, official Washington paid its respects at the state
funeral of a great American.
Now, more than ever, the President was on his own.

11

Two Advisory Bodies

With every meeting of the Cabinet, the President's method of using
the group grew clearer. Regarding it as an advisory body, and as an
instrument for frank discussion, he used the Cabinet as a means of
promoting uniformity of policy among the various departments. He
wanted teamwork, no feuds. He also wanted a dignified informality.
He called each of us by first name; we addressed him as "Mr. President, 3 *
but members of the White House staff sometimes called him "Chief"
or "the Boss."

The President created the position of Secretary to the Cabinet, and
gave it to Maxwell M. Rabb, a Boston lawyer. The secretary drew up a
formal agenda for each Cabinet meeting. A couple of days before the
meeting he would review the agenda with the President and brief
him. The agenda was circulated among the members well before the
Cabinet meeting.

Often there would be a formal presentation, a "Cabinet paper," care-
fully prepared and perhaps illustrated by charts, slides, or films; at
other times presentations were informal. Discussion of most subjects
flowed freely. When an especially serious matter came before the
Cabinet, the President might call for an individual expression of opinion
by everyone, sometimes going around the table, with each of us talking
in turn; but more frequently discussion was a kind of free-for-all.

Items for decision came to the Cabinet if they were of major im-
portance, if they involved in one way or another several departments, or
if efforts to settle a matter at lower levels had proved ineffective. The
President moved slowly in getting Cabinet agreement — but when agree-
ment was reached, this became administration policy to be accepted by
all the department heads regardless of their original position unless it

134 CROSS FIRE

was in serious conflict with personal convictions which, in my own
case, sometimes occurred.

The President never asked for a vote. Usually Cabinet decisions were
unanimous and promptly arrived at. After a subject had been
thoroughly explored the President might say, "Well, we've devoted
enough time to that." Or, "I guess we will all get behind this thing,
then, unless I hear something to the contrary." If no decision had been
indicated he would postpone action or table the subject.

The President never dominated the discussion; he led it. If, as hap-
pened rarely, participation was inadequate, he would sometimes draw
out members by direct questions. We had vigorous debates but never a
bitter one in Cabinet at any session I attended. Opinions, though voiced
candidly, were always presented in good spirit. The President pro-
moted this attitude by his emphasis on team play. Most of the livelier
discussions stemmed from sincere interdepartmental differences on basic
economic policy or procedure.

The President allowed Cabinet members a great deal of authority, not
only in expression, but in actions outside Cabinet on all policies not de-
cided upon as Administration policy. He made it plain that he had
no use for "yes men." If someone made a comment or proposal such as,
for example, to reduce Federal grants for highways, and the President
disagreed, it was a mistake to backtrack. The President would quickly
say that it didn't mean discussion should end just because he expressed
his opposition. Later on he said: "I've given way on a number of per-
sonal opinions to this gang."

During the first months I sought on every appropriate occasion to
present to the Cabinet the case for strong prudent action in agriculture.
All needed to know what we were trying to do, and why. At one meeting
in mid-March we had taken up a difficult problem that had arisen in
Maryland. Tobacco growers in that state had voted against acreage con-
trols on tobacco in 1952, but now a great many of them wanted to
overthrow the vote and get into a control program. We explored what
could be done to help these growers in the face of the impossibility of
permitting fanners to reject a program by referendum and then come
back a few months later expecting to reverse themselves.

In other sessions, we discussed the dairy problem, the USDA reorgan-
ization, the growing seriousness of the drought in the Southwest, the
influence of high rigid supports on our farm exports. But the pressures
of government kept all of us extremely busy and our meetings very full,
and not until many months had passed did I know whether the Cabinet
really understood the complexity of the farm problem.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER I35

In mid-April, when the President went to Atlanta for a rest, we had
the first Cabinet meeting presided over by Vice President Nixon. He
handled himself well; naturally, however, he lacked the President's sure
touch and command of the group.

July 10, 1953, marked the anniversary of the day Dwight D. Eisen-
hower received the Republican nomination for President. At Cabinet
that morning we had a celebration. We gave the President a board
with 24 fishing lures on behalf of his Cabinet and the White House
staff. Jim Hagerty, the President's press secretary, in helping present the
board, snagged his trousers on one of the hooks. The President roared.
Somebody immediately said that Hagerty was the biggest fish those lures
would ever catch.

Bob Cutler of the White House staff presented the President an
original poem.

TO COMMEMORATE WHAT HAPPENED IN CHICAGO
ONE YEAR AGO TODAY

A Poem to the Great Fisherman from His Little Fishes Who Are
All Wriggling Happily in His Creel.

To lure sly trout from placid pools
You need rare skill and proper tools,
Both Ways and Means, as well as deeds.
To catch the Big Ones in the Reeds,

No need for lures for Weeks or Hobby;
They're in the creel, not in the lobby,
You cast in Legislative pools;
Your fish are elephants and mules.

Dear Friend and Chief, take then these flies
Mated in beauty, shape, and size;
Oh happy fish to strike this lure,
When cast forth by a hand so sure!

With Ezra B. we share one wish,
Which on behalf of all I utter;
Fill up our bins with Ike-caught fish,
Instead of all that golden butter.

Izaak Walton, 3RD.

The first casualty of the Cabinet was Martin Durkin, who resigned
after about eight months. Durkin, I thought, was an unhappy man as
Secretary of Labor. He never caught the spirit of the Eisenhower pro-
gram. Taft had called Durkin's appointment incredible, but what made

I36 GROSS FIRE

it unworkable was not the choice of a labor leader but Durkin's per-
sonality. My interpretation of the President's reasoning was that he
wanted to show organized labor that he was willing to go more than
halfway to meet them; that he was willing to pick somebody from their
ranks as part of the President's official family. And the corollary, I sup-
pose, would be that he was in a sense challenging this spokesman for
organized labor to convince the President that some of the labor policies
of the Roosevelt and Truman administrations were good for the country.

But Durkin, a likeable man, was a labor leader out of his element.
Whenever Eisenhower called on him, he was not just laconic, but al-
most speechless. He was not at all aggressive. Durkin and I, who might
perhaps have been expected to get into a squabble over farm labor, had
no problems on that whatsoever. Yet there were problems built into the
issue.

The farm labor unit used to be in the USD A, but some years before I
became Secretary it was transferred to the Department of Labor. Some
of the farm groups asked me to join them in getting that unit back
into Agriculture. They said they didn't have a sympathetic ear over in
the Labor Department.

I said, "Well now, let's see — let's see if we can't work this out so
you will have a sympathetic ear." In Cabinet, I told the President I'd
had this request for help but I said, "I have no particular desire to
have that labor unit over in Agriculture."

Then Durkin spoke up, "Well if the Secretary of Agriculture wants
it, Pm not anxious to keep it."

The President said, I remember, that it was refreshing to see Cabinet
members who didn't want to build an empire.

So then I went back to the farm group and told them, "Now let's
let this go for a while and see if it doesn't work out. If it doesn't, then
we'll talk about a shift." There never was a shift. There were some dis-
agreements between Agriculture and Labor, but these came after Durkin
had resigned.

One day there was real evidence of progress in explaining the in-
tricacies of agriculture to the Cabinet. At a White House dinner honor-
ing President Jose Antonio Remon of Panama, Secretary George
Humphrey came over and said, "Ezra, what would you think of spend-
ing an evening with me and some of the other Cabinet people, really
getting into the fine points of this farm problem? I'd appreciate it. I
need some educating in this field. And I'm not alone."

Of course, I agreed. The whole Administration, I felt, had to take a

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER I37

definite and firm position on the farm question. The stand of some in
our own party had confused the issue for the average citizen.

Some time after this George Humphrey made a remarkably effective
speech on the farm problem to a group in Ohio. He was a "quick
study."

In June, my family moved to Washington. And, to judge by earlier
comments of some of the staff, it was none too soon.

During the spring, after her recovery from the accident, Barbara had
come to Washington to spend about ten days. We went to luncheons,
dinners, and Church meetings together. Barbara sang at these meetings
and made me very proud. The day she was to leave, I remarked to
one of my more outspoken co-workers how sorry I'd be when it came
time to put her on the plane for Salt Lake City.

"We'll all be sorry, 5 ' he said.

I raised an eyebrow.

"You've no idea," he went on, "how much easier it's been to get along
with you since Barbara's been here."

I had done my best to keep equilibrium by getting away from the
Washington desk occasionally and out into the fields, woods, and
streams. Bill Marriott had been a godsend. Every now and then he'd
call and say, "T., I'm going out to the ranch. How about coming along?"

Riding horseback around Bill's nearby Virginia ranch was one of my
favorite relaxations. Unfortunately, there was never time to do it as
often or as long as I'd have liked, though I did get out about once a
month. There is nothing better than a hard ride in a good old Western
saddle to drive the cobwebs from your mind.

Marriott had a high spirited Tennessee walker called Trigger that
nobody else seemed to want to take on. I had some fine, exhilarating
rides on that animal. He was my favorite mount. In the spring, especially
when the dogwood, azaleas, and other shrubs were flowering, the ranch
was a marvelous retreat.

And Rock Creek Park, set aside through the vision of Theodore
Roosevelt, helped too. The Park, running virtually the length of Wash-
ington, offers winding tree-shaded drives, with fords crossing and re-
crossing the creek, birds in the trees, ducks on the ponds, picnic groves, a
200, and a cool, woodsy atmosphere even during the hot humid days.
It's a haven for the harassed or fatigued.

Many times a drive through the Park was just the solace I needed
for my jangled nerves.

On an early visit to the Marriott farm, which is near a Beef Cattle

I38 CROSS FIRE

Experiment Station operated cooperatively with the Virginia Agricul-
tural College, I found a lovely little rock cottage on top of one of the
hills. It had formerly been occupied by the Army but had been unused
for the past three or four years. Going inside, I noticed that the cottage
was fast deteriorating. A leak in the roof badly needed patching. I sug-
gested to some of the USDA people in charge of the station that the
place should be fixed up. Some weeks later, after inspecting the property
again, I made arrangements to have it put into good condition so that it
could be used for staff conferences, for veterinarians visiting the Station,
and for a possible weekend retreat for Department officials at a reason-
able rate. We called the place Hill Top, and it really was a good place to
get away for a spell.

Early in March I had gone out house-hunting. The prices asked for
homes struck me as almost unbelievably high; they seemed at least 50
per cent more than comparable Salt Lake values. I decided to wait.

On the last Sunday in March, Flora came to Washington with Dr.
Bryner. Though she had not fully recovered from the shock of the
accident and was required to take a good deal of rest daily, she looked
both beautiful and healthy.

She had come partly to visit, partly to help find a house. Any reason
at all suited me fine.

Paul Stone, the developer of the fashionable Crestwood subdivision
between 16th Street and Rock Creek Park, in showing us around the
area, made the mistake of including on the tour a house he had built
for himself on Quincy Street. He had been living there for about nine
months. It was the last house on the street and was right up over the
Park, in a quiet neighborhood only 12 to 15 minutes from the Depart-
ment. It was easy to see that Flora loved it.

When we finished the tour, I said, "The only house we're interested
in is the one on Quincy Street,"
"You mean my house?"
"Yes. 55

Pretty soon, we found our roles reversed, and I was selling him on
letting us buy his place. Something about it reminded me of our Salt
Lake home, though architecturally it was quite different.

There was plenty of room for the whole family. The basement recrea-
tion area, I knew, would appeal to the children. A shuffleboard court
could be built into the floor and there was space for our ping-pong
table and for the group dancing we always liked as part of our family
nights.

Best of all, or almost so, it was practically in Rock Creek Park.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 139

So, on April 2, we made arrangements to buy the house, contingent
on Flora's being able to sell our home in Salt Lake.

And then in June, I went out to Utah to get Flora and the four
girls, Mark was staying in the West and Reed was still on duty with
the Air Force. The furniture had been packed and the vans had already
left when I arrived. We spent the night at neighbors' homes. Next
evening, the Yale Ward (or parish) tendered us a lovely testimonial
service and reception to which about 600 persons came to bid us
goodby and wish us well. Early on June 15 we were driven to the airport
where we said farewell to more friends and departed the surroundings
that were so dear.

A family discussion had been held about purchasing a car, to re-
place the ruined convertible. Though friends in D.C. had said we
wouldn't need a car we all wanted one.

We went into family council about what kind and what color car
we would buy. True to the tradition of Henry Ford, I was willing to
take any color if it was black. The children considered anything but
bright colors impossible. But with the weight of parental respect on my
side, this issue was soon settled. We flew to South Bend. Next day we
picked up our new car, a Studebaker Champion. Somehow I couldn't
get comfortable in that machine. It was fire engine red, of course.

That summer we did a good deal of fixing up around the place. We
remodeled part of the basement, installing an office for me. When we
had finished these alterations toward the latter part of July, we had a
big family night. The girls fixed refreshments, and hot as it was, we even
tried out the basement fireplace. Crazy maybe, but fun.

I loved to play horseshoes, but when the children suggested we put a
horseshoe pit in the backyard, I demurred. Swings and a sandbox, of
course, fine. But to put a pit in our none-too-large yard would leave
little room for flowers and a garden. The family knew the arguments to
use. "Home is a place to live in, not to look at." "We all need the
exercise." "Horseshoes is ideal to work off nervous energy." Fact is, I
was hoping they'd talk me into it.

Later, when Reed's tour of duty in the Air Force ended and he
joined us, he and I would often go out into the yard to toss shoes and
talk before supper. We had a little custom of giving the loser a second
chance. After the game, we'd take a final toss. Whoever came out
ahead on that one could claim victory. Believe it or not, this was for
Reed's benefit, not mine.

140 CROSS FIRE

The family had a good many adjustments to make. I disliked the
red car. But I felt no more conspicuous in it than the children did in
the official, USDA shining black, air-conditioned Cadillac limousine,
complete with telephone. Every member of the family at one time or
another protested against being chauffeured in it. They all felt sensitive
about being the focal point of so many eyes as is inevitable even in
sophisticated Washington. Barbara, especially, not only didn't like it; she
detested it. Several times Barbara, who was eighteen, shed tears when
upset over being stared at and required to ride in the limousine. We
had always taught the children not to be pretentious or to put on airs,
and she evidently felt the use of the government car ran directly
counter to those early lessons in humility. "Daddy," she said, "you
know we can't afford such a car. People will surely misjudge us and
I don't think it's right."

We soon learned to love our Crestwood home. Often I would have
the chauffeur take me through the Park on my way to work at 7 o'clock
in the morning. At other times, we would drive home that way at night,
and the Park provided an opportunity for reflection, for reviewing the
happenings of the day, and for that communion with my Maker which
is so necessary to me. In the evening, to unwind, I would walk around
a few blocks in the lovely area where we lived. Sometimes in the
morning, I'd walk down several blocks to meet the car. Once again, I
found myself eagerly looking forward to weekends, family nights and
evenings at home. What a difference a home makes. What a difference
there is in knowing that at the day's end, you will return to those you
love, to your own house and yard, to a place of contentment and peace
that is truly your own.

Immediately we resumed our custom of a family night every Wednes-
day. In Salt Lake we had a juke box, but we didn't bring it to Washing-
ton. That didn't hamper the Bensons' musical expression. We had a
piano, for singing around, and a Magnavox combination radio and
phonograph with plenty of good records for dancing, including waltzes
and polkas.

The kitchen is usually the center of activity in any home — and it
was in ours. The children loved to take chairs and sit around chatting
with Flora, and helping too, while the meals were being prepared.
And there was always food for snacks at night.

Flora and I wanted the entire family to have plenty of fruits, vege-
tables, milk, and other nutritious foods. We had a kind of running
contest with the girls; we to see that they had enough nutritious foods,
and they to see how many rich pastries they could cook or sneak into the

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 141

house when they did the shopping. They used to hide these "delicacies"
in the cupboards, behind crockery or china or other kitchen staples, or
they'd camouflage the package.

I'm sure they caught on finally that Flora and I weren't always
fooled and they accepted my periodic nutrition lectures with good
grace.

Like any father, I have eccentricities. One of my favorite dishes is a
bowl of whole wheat bread, covered with honey and swimming in milk.
The family regards this as perfectly normal and acceptable. But for
some reason when I garnish it with raw onions, they make faces.

That most neglected of all foods — the onion. We had a ritual. I'd
come into the kitchen, pick out an onion, take a bite, look at the
onion in my hand and then at the grimacing faces of our offspring.
"You know • . ." Pd say, and then they would all recite, in a kind of
chant, "The onion is the most neglected vegetable in the world."

At which I would nod, take another bite, and after a moment say,
"Glad to see you're finally learning — here, have an onion."

Having the family together again made us doubly appreciate the
Sabbath. How wise the Lord was in setting aside one day in seven
for rest and dedication to Him.

Shortly after taking office, I indicated to someone, I don't remember
to whom, that I would not take part in any secular activities on Sunday,
except in an emergency, or, as we put it, to free the ox in the mire. This
got to the press and was later released throughout the country. I adhered
to it strictly, and the press, radio, and TV respected it.

The National Broadcasting Company put a good deal of pressure
on me to change my policy, but in the end agreed rather reluctantly to
pre-record Sunday programs on which I was to appear. Though I was
sorry to be the cause of this inconvenience, Sunday was the Lord's
day and I wanted to offer it to Him and His work and to my family.
This was about the only occasion on which I insisted that if they wanted
me it would have to be on my terms.

Our social life could have gone into orbit the minute we moved to
Washington. In a city notorious for its cocktail and dinner circuit, top
government personnel, if they accepted all invitations, could be wined
and dined every night in the year and at least twice on Sundays. We as
a family made an agreement that no purely social parties should be at-
tended on Sunday.

Our personal Mormon standards of using neither alcohol nor tobacco
and of abstaining as well from coffee and tea, may have been a little
confusing to some of our hosts and hostesses in the early days, but after

142 CROSS FIRE

a time they became accepted as a matter of course. Never were we
made to feel embarrassed because of our standards.

Finances were part of our family adjustment.

A salary of $22,500 seems munificent That's what Cabinet members
were paid in 1953; later it was raised to $25,000. When you add to
this the "extras," such as a limousine with chauffeur, the private dining
room, and the many invitations to dine, cocktail and party, it would
appear that to be in the Cabinet is to enjoy unalloyed prosperity.

When the invitation to serve had been accepted, a former ambas-
sador and Under Secretary of State, J. Ruben Clark, said, "It will cost
you money to live in Washington even on that salary."

It wasn't going to cost me, that I knew, because we would have
to live on my salary, but we certainly weren't going to get rich.

You're expected to make heavy contributions to a wide mixture of
causes, political, charitable, social, religious. One tenth of my salary
was tithed to the Church anyhow. Political expectations would be far
greater than attendance at $100 a plate dinners. I've mentioned the
$300 boxes at the Inaugural Ball, which we refused because at that
time we just couldn't afford it. All the Secretaries of Agriculture have
their portraits painted, and hung in the corridors after their departure.

One social function planned by some of the Cabinet wives had its costs
totaled in advance. The Benson end of it came to $700. That was so
far out of line with our finances that we just refused to go along.
When a couple of others in the Cabinet said they felt the same, the
plans were scaled way down. Everybody had just as good a time.

Ours was a large family. From 1953 on we always had one and
sometimes as many as three children in college, and usually in far-
away Utah. Besides, there were piano, organ, and vocal lessons for
Barbara and Beverly, and music and art for Bonnie and for Beth.

So, strange as it may appear to those who don't know the high costs
of living in keeping with the standards of Washington officialdom,
money was one surplus we didn't have to contend with.

That didn't bother us, because back in 1943, Flora and I had
turned our backs on money. A big regional cooperative invited me to
head it up at the very fancy starting figure of $40,000. Here was one of
those crossroads of life, a breakthrough into the high income bracket,
with the path ahead leading perhaps to still greater financial success. But
before I decided, I wanted to talk it over with the leaders of the
Church. It would require me to leave Washington and give up my
position as president of the Washington stake.

I went to Salt Lake and there was told that Church President Heber

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER I43

J. Grant wanted me to come see him. Good, Fd have a chance to
bring it up. President Grant was just recovering from an illness and
he received me in his bedroom. He was lying on the bed. As I ap-
proached, he took my hand in both of his, looked earnestly into my
eyes and said, "Brother Benson, with all my heart I congratulate you
and pray God's blessings to attend you. You have been chosen as the
youngest apostle of the Church. 55

This was the other road. It would provide only a small living al-
lowance, no chance to lay money by — but it offered an honor and
responsibility far beyond my hopes or aspirations. To be a member
of the Council of the Twelve in our Church is the highest honor
attainable.

There was never any question about what we would do. Without a
moment's hesitation, Flora joined me in choosing a life of service in
the Church.

Neither of us had any interest in making money when we came to
Washington in 1953; we just wanted to be sure to make ends meet.

All that talk about the Cabinet's consisting of a bunch of millionaires
and a plumber was hokum; but there was just enough wealth in it
to give Flora and me a headache.

I never realized it until later, but I know now that having Flora
and the family nearby gave me new confidence in doing my job. I be-
came more decisive, surer of myself, more willing to tackle the tough
challenges. For years I had depended on her counsel and wise judg-
ment to supplement my own thinking. In a good marriage that is in-
evitable. Husband and wife share their thoughts, their desires, their
problems, their joys and sorrows, until their unity is such that it's
hard to tell where one person leaves off and the other begins.

Yes, the family came just in time — because that summer and fall saw
the pressures against my continuing in office build far higher than
they had during the dark days of February after St. Paul. It became
doubtful indeed that I could survive.

12

"Ike" Gets into the Fight

Probably more than any other factor, what brought the President
wholeheartedly into the fight for a sound farm program was the grow-
ing violence of the attacks upon me. And when he came in, he was
swinging both fists.

Falling prices continued to bring onslaughts from those who dis-
agreed on political or agricultural policy, and increasingly bitter op-
position from the bloc of farmers and ranchers who followed the line of
the National Farmers Union.

During the last year of the Truman Administration, the index of
farm prices fell from 299 to 266, a drop of 1 1 per cent. By December
1953, the end of our first year, the index stood at 250, a further fall of
6 per cent. Even though the rate of decline was only about half the rate
of 1952, the last Truman year, the political screaming seemed twice
as loud.

Cattle still led the downtrend. Despite all that we could do through
purchases, removal of price controls and compulsory grading, and ag-
gressive merchandising which sharply increased per capita consump-
tion of beef, the price of feeder steers at the Kansas City yards fell
from an average of $21.73 in January 1953 to $15.07 in September.
Again the pace of the decline was slower than in the last months under
Secretary Brannan.

Politicians and newsmen are alike in that they are always looking
for straws in the wind. Some of them thought they saw a straw in the
wheat referendum of 1953.

Because of the rapidly increasing accumulation of wheat, I invoked
controls, acreage allotments, and marketing quotas on the 1954 crop

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER I45

even though I had little faith in their effectiveness. Under the formula
in the law — which provided that the national acreage allotment should
vary in inverse proportion to the wheat supply — wheat acreage in 1954
would have been reduced to the legal limit of 55,000,000. Since
farmers had seeded 79,000,000 acres and harvested nearly 68,000,000
in 1953? such a reduction would have been exceedingly severe. We
recommended to the Congress, therefore, that the 1954 allotment be
set at not less than 62,000,000 acres.

The House Agricultural Committee, apparently less worried about
the mounting wheat surplus, rejected this recommendation and passed
a resolution setting the allotment at 66,000,000 acres. The Senate com-
mittee, however, went along with our recommendation and the 62,000,-
000 acre limitation prevailed for the 1954 wheat crop.

As provided by law, a national wheat referendum was held on
August 14, 1953, to give producers opportunity to accept or reject
the controls. The growers approved the controls on the 1954 wheat crop
in a ratio of almost 7 to 1.

Our critics, by some quaint unfathomable logic, attempted to interpret
this as a slap at "the Benson philosophy." Actually the wheat producers
of the country had no real choice. On one hand, they were offered price
support at about $2.20 per bushel (90 per cent of parity) in ex-
change for less than a 10 per cent reduction in harvested acreage. Judg-
ing by past experience, efficient wheat producers knew that they could
make up for most, or all, of the acreage reduction by increased yields
per acre. The alternative was to produce as much wheat as they
pleased, but with price support at only 50 per cent of parity or about
$1.22 per bushel. From the standpoint of wheat producers' incomes
there was just no comparison between the two alternatives.

We had expected the allotments and quotas to be approved. I said
in various public statements, "In view of the major adjustments made
necessary from all out production to today's lower demands, it is my
feeling that farmers have made a wise decision."

But the press teemed with statements by high rigid support advocates
to the effect that our philosophy had been spectacularly rejected. Some
persons, I suspect, swallowed the propaganda.

Throughout the summer and fall, rumors persisted that I was on
the way out and that the President was looking for my successor. The
odds in the car pool betting, which had improved after I survived the
February storm, shifted sharply.

Typical of the rumors was an item in Look magazine in late August:

1^6 GROSS FIRE

EVENTS IN THE MAKING

New Agriculture Secretary may be Gov. Dan Thornton of
Colorado. It's considered significant that present Agriculture
Secretary Benson is the only Cabinet member who (sic) Eisen-
hower addresses as "Mr."

Where the writer obtained his information remains a mystery. The
President called all of us by our first names almost from the beginning.
He did this not only in conversation but in his written communica-
tions.

By September 1953 when the President went to Denver for a vaca-
tion, the rumor factory went on overtime. They had it that the Presi-
dent had definitely tapped Governor Thornton to take over. On Sep-
tember 15, the press wire services asked me point blank: Was I
quitting? If so, when? Was it true that Governor Thornton was to be
the next Secretary?

I told them the simple truth, "I know nothing about it." I was in
Salt Lake City and when I flew to Denver that night, they were sure
this was not where I came in, but where I was going out. They had
my political "obit" almost in type.

The next morning I had an hour's conference with the President at
the Denver home of Mrs. Eisenhower's mother, Mrs. Elivera M. Doud.
Throughout our discussion on the progress being made in formulating
the farm program for 1954, neither the President nor I referred to
these stories; but after we had completed our conference and while
photographers were taking pictures on the veranda, he suddenly turned
to me. "Ezra, I hope you haven't been concerned or disturbed by
certain rumors which I understand are making the rounds."

"Mr. President," I replied, "I haven't worried about them at all.
I joined up at your invitation. So long as you feel that I am making a
contribution to your crusade, I have no disposition whatsoever to re-
sign."

He nodded approvingly, and I went on. "If the time ever comes,
however, Mr. President, that you feel a change would be best for the
Administration, all you need to do is pick up the telephone and let me
know."

He cut me off right at that point. Such a time would never come.

"No one could ask for greater assurance," I said.

On leaving the President, I joined Governor Thornton for lunch at
the Country Club. He assured me there was nothing to the current
rumor that he had discussed with the President the possibility of be-

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 147

coming Secretary of Agriculture. "The fact is, the matter has never
been mentioned between us/ 5 the Governor said. He added that he
thoroughly supported my actions as Secretary.

The rumors of my impending resignation continued.

Then something happened that hurt me rather deeply.

On October 9, 1953, I spent an hour with Congressman Clifford
Hope reviewing the farm situation. Although I invited his suggestions
and criticisms and emphasized the importance of our working as a
team in the best interest of agriculture, he hardly seemed to be listening
as though other things filled his mind.

I wondered why and what. The next day I learned the answer.

Appearing before the House Agriculture Committee to discuss plans
for the further reorganization of the Department, I had expected some
political criticism of the Administration proposals. We were surprised
to encounter almost no opposition. It appeared that the Committee
was just going through the motions of holding a hearing and wanted
to get it over as quickly as possible. As we were leaving the room,
Congressman Hope announced that the Committee on Livestock had
a report to make and that the full Committee would go into executive
session.

In a few hours the bombshell burst. The Committee released to
the press two resolutions demanding that I put price supports under
livestock. This was an open break with the Administration. It came as
a complete surprise not only to me but to the White House.

That night Congressman Hope telephoned and at my insistence sent
copies of the resolutions to my home by messenger. Later I was told that
someone, either at the White House or the Republican National Com-
mittee, had demanded that he make the call.

This was the most disturbing thing that had happened since I came
into office. The House Committee had the bit in its teeth. It was
going it alone, regardless of how this might embarrass the Administration
and the President. I felt sure that they could not have been fully
familiar with what we had been doing to meet the livestock problem.

To be slapped in the face by the House Committee was hard to take.

In view of their resolutions, I sent statements to Congressman Hope,
leaders of the livestock associations, and heads of the various farm
organizations stressing once more why it would be impracticable and
dangerous to put supports under the price of live cattle.

The Committee had misread the trend of farmers' thinking.

A Gallup Poll was published the next day, October 10, 1953. The

I48 CROSS FIRE

pollsters had asked farmers: "Do you approve or disapprove of the
way Ezra Taft Benson is handling his job as Secretary of Agriculture?"
The answers were:

approve 34 per cent
disapprove 27 per cent
no opinion 39 per cent

political affiliation the results were:

APPROVE

Democratic farmers 24
GOP farmers 45
Independent farmers 34

DISAPPROVE

18
24

NO OPINION

37
42

According to this more farmers approved what we were doing than
disapproved, while the largest number had not yet made up their minds.
Of more significance to me was our mail commenting on farm policy
— it never ran less than 90 per cent favorable on any check throughout
the eight years.

No poll was needed to indicate how the President felt. He was just
plain mad and he told me so. He could understand neither the House
Committee's action nor their failure to seek conferences in a coopera-
tive spirit. If the Committee had hoped by their resolution to prod the
President into a reaction, they succeeded; but I hardly think it was
what they expected.

In his next press conference he grimly told the reporters that it is
the President's responsibility to decide who should be his principal as-
sociates and advisers, that he had seen no one more dedicated to agri-
culture than myself. He for one was not going to be critical, he said,
because I could not produce a miraculous, one line cure for all the evils
of agriculture. He had studied the problem some himself and knew the
difficulties involved.

On October 13, 1953, a special election was held in the 9th Con-
gressional District of Wisconsin to select a Congressman to replace
Representative Merlin Hull, who had died that year. Though a Re-
publican, Congressman Hull had for twenty years voted consistently
with the Democrats on farm legislation. This was one of the oddities of
Wisconsin politics. Hull was a nominal Republican in a nominally
GOP district. After Hull's death, a bitter battle developed in the Re-
publican primary and it left its scar. Although this district of Wis-
consin had never sent a Democratic representative to Congress, I was
not surprised that it did so in the special election of October 1953, choos-

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 149

ing Lester R. Johnson to fill the vacancy. Ignoring true reasons behind
the Johnson victory, the Democrats gleefully seized upon this as an-
other straw in the wind, that our farm policies would handicap Re-
publicans running for election or re-election in the Midwest.

And some Midwest Republicans fell for it. Senator Karl Mundt let
himself be quoted that the Wisconsin congressional election "was a very
direct indication that the farmers in that area lacked confidence in the
farm policies of Secretary Benson." It left me, he suggested, with two
alternatives; to come out in favor of high price supports, or resign.

Senator Milton Young didn't even admit alternatives. I should quit
because, "Benson has lost the confidence of the farmers." Congressman
Arthur L. Miller, a Nebraska Republican, also called for my resignation.
And there were others.

Again the newspaper choir was heard in the land.

"benson est trouble," wrote columnist Peter Edson.

"EISENHOWER FACES TASK OF SAVING BENSON,"

said The Christian Science Monitor.

"BENSON ON SPOT WITH U.S. FARMERS,"

wrote the Florence (South Carolina) News, and

"BENSON UNPOPULAR,"

sang the Rock Island (Illinois) Argus in response.

If I had suited my actions to the chorus, that fall would have seen me
shaking the dust of Washington from my feet.

On October 15, both the President and I were in Kansas City to
address the annual convention of the Future Farmers of America. After
making his speech that night, Eisenhower sent a messenger to invite
me to his suite.

And again I wondered. How long could he ignore the urgings of
these powerful Midwestern Republicans? How long could he resist
the thought that I was turning into an albatross around his party's
neck? A number of Republicans wanted the President to replace me
with Congressman Hope; actually Hope had been prominently men-
tioned for the post long before I was selected. When I reached the
President's suite in the Hotel Muehlebach, he was talking with members
of his staff, and Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Oveta
Culp Hobby. As his guests were leaving, the President asked me to stay
on awhile.

150 CROSS FIRE

We sat facing each other. Very soberly, he began to talk of his
extreme displeasure at the actions of the House Agriculture Committee.

Not knowing just what he was leading up to, but resolved to help
him in any way I could if he wanted me to resign, I seized the first
opportunity. "Mr. President, perhaps after all it might be best for
me to make a change," I said. "If you feel it would help your Ad-
ministration for me to step aside in favor of Congressman Hope, you
have only to say the word."

The President's jaw set and his eyes flashed. He looked me full in
the face. "That will never happen," he snapped. "I don't want to hear
any more about it."

On the contrary, what he wanted to talk about was further progress
in our plans for a sound, well-coordinated farm program, to be presented
to the Congress in January 1954. He assured me that he would give us
all the help he possibly could consistent with other demands on his
time and energy. We'd work out a program we believed in, one that
farmers could live with, regardless of political opposition.

I went back to my hotel much encouraged. No doubt about it; the
President was in the thick of the fight.

The President's anger had evidently been transmitted to Cliff Hope,
because the next day I was surprised to see Hope come striding over
at dinner in Kansas City. He asked if we could get together for a talk.
He told me he had come to Kansas City from Iowa, where his Com-
mittee was holding hearings, to confer with me. Hoping a time could
be arranged, I checked with my executive secretary. An extremely full
schedule of activities had been planned and the only time open was at
6:45 the next morning.

At that somewhat early hour we had a rather brief conference, the
principal fruit of which was an expression on Hope's part of a desire
to be cooperative. While I was willing to accept this declaration at
face value, I could not help feeling that the divergence in our thinking
on the farm problem might not be permanently bridged so easily.

The culmination of these early efforts to force me either to knuckle
under or resign came with the so-called "cattle caravan" of October
1953-

We received a wire from Jim Patton, president of the Farmers
Union. A caravan of some several hundred cattlemen were coming to
Washington to confer with me. I wired back suggesting that a smaller
group be selected, saving the expense of bringing so many so far. But,
although they didn't say so, discussion wasn't the purpose of the caravan.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 151

It was coming for political effect, a sort of farmers' march on Washing-
ton, to demand high supports on cattle.

On Sunday, October 24, they arrived, 350 strong. We showed
them every consideration, set up an information desk in the lobby of
USDA's Administration Building, and made the Department auditorium
available for their gatherings.

We agreed to meet the group in the auditorium on Monday, October
25, to listen to their story. As I walked down the aisle of the Department
auditorium at 1 1 a.m., the place was filled to overflowing. People were
standing in the back. Representatives of the press, the movies, radio,
and TV, as well as many USDA employees, had come to see this
face-to-face confrontation.

Some in the caravan were still wearing colorful Western boots and
carrying wide-brim hats. Some were not cattlemen at all. I saw a num-
ber of people I knew and shook hands. In the caravan were about 35
persons from Utah and a half dozen from Idaho. This Utah-Idaho
group, many of them fellow Church members, centered their requests
for drought relief. Some of them I had met the night before at a Church
service in the Mormon Chapel on 16th Street. I had explained to them
that it was necessary to establish certain standards on drought relief,
and that the President determined in which counties the aid was most
needed. I realized that some areas which wanted assistance had been
turned down and that these included some in my own adopted state of
Utah. We had talked and parted as friends.

That morning in the auditorium, I sat in the front row of seats,
while a number of cattlemen went to the speakers' stand and asked for
government aid. We heard them out with full attention.

Then it was our turn. I expressed deep and genuine sympathy for
the plight of the nation's cattlemen. I reviewed the actions we had
taken to help, and reiterated my belief that most of the readjustments
under way in the livestock industry were now behind us. I recalled
previous government attempts to support prices of perishables, such as
potatoes, livestock, and poultry and the dismal failures that had re-
sulted, but I said, "Nevertheless, if you can come up with a sound
plan for something that we are not doing, we'll consider it."

Select a smaller group to confer with me in my office, I urged, and
bring a definite plan of what you think should be done.

The next morning at 11 o'clock, a group of 24 persons came into
the office and took chairs for our conference. "Well, gentlemen," I
said, "what are your proposals?"

They simply demanded 90 per cent supports on cattle. Our Live-

152 CROSS FIRE

stock Advisory Committee and 19 out of the 23 farm and livestock or-
ganizations we had wired, had all agreed that a practical program of
price supports for live cattle was impossible. I explained this and gave
the reasons again why we could not do what they asked.

When it was over, the meeting had worked out satisfactorily from
our standpoint, while the leaders of the caravan, I felt sure, were dis-
appointed in the public reaction. They blundered badly when their
chairman, Denny Driscoll, announced that he had lost $100,000 in
the livestock business during the past two years, but could still weather
the storm for another year. Several reporters told me they'd like to
be in a position to lose $100,000, "Believe me," one said, "I wouldn't
come to Washington with my hand out." Unwittingly, Driscoll had
made it plain that his group did not represent livestock producers
generally.

Some members of the caravan, I understand, came nearly all the
way to Washington by plane or train and then assembled to finish
the trip by bus as more befitting the role they were playing. Many re-
turned home by plane or train — and some went on to New York to
take in the sights of the big city.

After the caravan had departed, hundreds of letters and telegrams
flowed into the Department, most of them stating that members of
the caravan did not represent anybody but themselves.

So ended the cattle caravan — with headlines, yes, but approval of
their fantastic proposals, no.

Had it come a month or so earlier, and had the caravan not
bungled its public relations by such blunders as DriscolTs "$100,000
loss," its effect might have been somewhat different. As it was, my
position was now stronger than at almost any time since taking office.
This was because a great many farmers around the country had rec-
ognized the validity of our position and that we wouldn't be bullied
into unwise programs we'd have to repent of later. And then too the
President himself had stepped in.

On October 23, 1953, I felt that a major idea had been won with
the President. At Cabinet that morning I presented a Cabinet paper on
the agricultural situation, aided by Under Secretary Morse and Oris
V. Wells, head of the Agricultural Marketing Service. Afterwards, at
lunch with the President, Sherman Adams, Jerry Persons, Gabriel Hauge,
and Don Paarlberg, we discussed the farm situation further.

Now, for the first time, the President came out flatly in favor of a

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER I53

flexible price support program for agriculture and against high rigid
supports.

Eureka! For months the need for flexibility had been emphasized
in discussions with the President. So far as I was concerned this was a
true turning point. We could not hope for any real measure of success
in swinging the country to sound farm programs, in view of the en-
trenched positions of my opponents, unless the President was staunchly
at our side. Now he seemed prepared to do even more — he was ready
and willing to lead.

One of the President's finest characteristics was his deliberation in
making up his mind in areas with which he was not thoroughly familiar,
and then, once he reached a decision, his firmness in holding fast.
To me this is one of the prime qualities of statesmanship. I feel sure that
it explains much of the President's success in dealing with people and
problems. It is the Eisenhower version of Davy Crockett's precept, "Be
sure you're right, then go ahead."

This was the most important date of all in my first year as Secretary.

High Tide — Temporarily

The action of politics is often like that of the seas, the tide flows out
and the tide flows in. Following the violent attacks, came a friendly
reaction on a broad front.

The changing attitude was indicated, for example, by an editorial in
The Christian Science Monitor asking, "Who Demands Price Prop —
Farmers or Politicians?" and answering, of course, the politicians.

Senator Aiken, replying to reporters questioning whether I might re-
sign or be fired, said bluntly, "Not a chance." Benson, he said, is
"a good Secretary," and the victim of a "vicious smear campaign.

"The opposition which leans so heavily on government controls is in
the position of having to try to discredit and get rid of Benson before
the country finds out that agriculture can be both prosperous and free
at the same time . • . they want to get him out of there."

Leonard Hall scoffed at the speculation that our farm policies were
hurting Republican chances. Senator Wallace F. Bennett of Utah traced
the attacks to political origins. The real target, he said, was President
Eisenhower. Referring to a current magazine article "Benson Refuses
to Panic," Bennett ended his speech with: "God help America if we
panic and run out on men like him." He even suggested a slogan for
the coming campaign — "I like Ike — I back Benson."

154 CROSS FIRE

Senator Clinton P. Anderson told reporters that I was a "prisoner"
of the laws of Congress. "If he doesn't have decent agricultural laws
and policies, it is impossible to administer them well," Anderson re-
marked. "I can illustrate with the potato price support program, when
I was Secretary of Agriculture. I caught abuse from members of Con-
gress for executing the very laws they made, despite my repeated re-
quests for changes in the laws." Anderson also said something else for
which I was grateful, because it came close to summing up the core of
my own thinking. A lot of agriculture's troubles, he asserted, came from
the fact that "the Agricultural Acts of 1948 and 1949 have never been
given a chance to operate." These were the peacetime laws which
political expediency kept from going into operation.

The American National Livestock Association passed a strongly
worded resolution opposing "any legislated beef cattle price support or
control program." The Association said, "Free markets make free men."

The struggle of course was not over, but the tides were running
nicely and I was still afloat. Another challenge, ostensibly unimportant,
but intrinsically of the utmost significance now arose. In connection
with the reorganization of USDA, we proposed in mid-October, in
order to strengthen traditional Federal-state relations to eliminate the
seven regional offices of the Soil Conservation Service and transfer
their work to the various state offices of the Soil Conservation Service. A
veritable volcano of protest immediately burst forth from the National
Association of Soil Conservation Districts.

Accusing us of attempting to destroy "conservation," they managed
to bring in as opposition a whole host of sportsmen's groups and
women's clubs. So extensive was this protest that soon Congressmen,
Democrats and Republicans alike, were calling to urge us to abandon
or at least to postpone the reorganization of the SCS. They got to
the White House, too. Sherman Adams put us on the spot by making
a speech in which he said that the reorganization plan would not
be put into effect without long discussion. The day after Adams made
this talk, he telephoned Assistant Secretary Coke and told him flatly
that the plan was not to be put into effect unless, and until, we had
the complete approval of Representative Clifford Hope.

Both Coke and I also had calls from Senator Aiken and Allan Kline
on Saturday October 31, asking if we had had the word on reorganiza-
tion from the White House.

Obviously it was time to fish or cut bait. As Secretary, I had full
authority to reorganize the Department under the plan upheld by the

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER I55

Congress only five months before. The opposition simply wanted a de-
lay to enable them to deluge the Congress with telegrams. To permit
this could have been fatal to the entire reorganization plan.

I decided to move at once. Coke got the Department's solicitor and
his staff to meet with me the next day, Sunday. I asked him also to
set up plans and get out notices for a press conference to be held on
Monday. Because I regarded this as a case of "ox in the mire," a critical
emergency, I broke my rule about not conducting secular business on the
Sabbath, and spent part of Sunday morning in conference.

On Monday morning at 9 o'clock, 35 to 40 newsmen gathered in my
office. I explained our reorganization plan and announced that it was
being put into effect at once.

Strangely, as soon as this action was taken the opposition died. Some
observers remarked that this decisive move put the Congress on notice
that we knew what we wanted to do and were not afraid to act.

Senator Aiken said, "If Benson had delayed, the members of Con-
gress would have been getting telegrams out of the graveyards in another
month."

The favorable tides were running slightly better than the cross-cur-
rents. While in Columbus, Ohio, in mid-November, just as I was about
to address the convention of Land Grant Colleges and Universities,
Governor Frank J. Lausche came in. When I had finished, the Governor
was asked to make a few remarks and he said:

"I came to hear Mr. Benson. I was in attendance during the entire
talk which he delivered to you. I frankly say that the loftiness of the
principles which he enunciated, the clarity of the recommendations
which he made, and the intense patriotism manifested by his statements
very nearly demand that I not speak at all . . .

"I was deeply impressed by Mr. Benson's statement of the dangers of
doing patchworks, the dangers of taking sedatives which bring tem-
porary relief but frequently aggravate the danger and the troubles
that lurk in the body.

"As a public official— I know— there is nothing more difficult than
the achievement of changes in government. The colors may be distinctly
black and white, they may clearly demand a change, but when you
attempt to introduce it, the cry is made that there is political motivation
and that there is no soundness in the proposals made.

"Mr. Benson, I commend you on the excellence of your talk . . ."

Coming from the Democratic governor of an important Midwestern
state, this was truly encouraging.

I56 GROSS FIRE

In November, I went back to the drought country — to Lubbock,
Santa Fe, Albuquerque, and Prescott, Arizona; and then up into Wyo-
ming and Nevada. Though we found the winter range the worst I had
ever seen it, the reception was warm. Only in Missouri, where the
drought was less severe, but where the governor had been most un-
cooperative and demanding, did the atmosphere seem a little cool.

This turning of the tides helped greatly to encourage us in the plans
we were making.

During the summer we had initiated the most comprehensive survey
and study in history to find the kind of program the country needed.

We deliberately set out to tap all available resources — the farm people,
their organizations, the agricultural leaders in Congress, the well-trained
people in the agricultural colleges, the Department of Agriculture itself,
staffed with men who had developed, witnessed, engaged in, and helped
direct farm programs from the beginning.

We started by going to the grassroots. The big three general farm
organizations — the Farm Bureau, the Grange, and the Farmers Union
— responded with enthusiasm to a suggestion that their members debate
the issues. They prepared discussion material, alerted their members,
had their discussions, passed resolutions, and reported the results to the
USDA.

The Farm Bureau, the largest of the general farm organizations,
with 1,600,000 farm and ranch family members agreed with our pro-
grams and policies and strongly supported them. The AFBF has been
consistently wary of government controls, is opposed to government price
fixing, farm income grounded in Federal subsidies, and government
production controls as a means of "stabilizing" the farm economy.

The National Grange, the oldest of the general organizations (800,000
members), generally supported our policies, but less strongly than the
Farm Bureau.

The National Farmers Union (750,000 members) consistently op-
posed our position on price support; the NFU holds to the theory
that farm prices are, and should be, "made in Washington," — that the
agricultural economy must depend on Federal subsidies to give farmers
their "share" of the national income.

We urged all farm people, whatever their organization, to participate
in this nationwide forum. Individuals who did not belong to an organiza-
tion we asked to write to us directly.

Such a huge, coordinated, privately conducted effort in the demo-
cratic evaluation of farm programs had never before been held.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 157

To these grassroots opinions we added the thinking of the nation's
best-trained professional people. I wrote scores of personal letters to
outstanding figures at the colleges, to directors of research institutions,
asking them to study certain problems of farm price support legisla-
tion. At a conservative estimate, perhaps 500 individuals were involved
in replying to these specific requests. We sought the soundest opinions,
without reference to political party. We obtained judgments from the
"farm brains" of institutions in every section of the country, and covering
every major farm product.

In evaluating these we had the help of the National Agricultural
Advisory Commission.

In all we received some 16,000 letters containing suggestions on
the price support program.

On the basis of this study, here's the way it looked to us:

In the 1930s the people of the United States developed farm pro-
grams to help farmers pull out of a depression. In the 1940s they made
changes in the programs to help fight a war. But in the 1950s with
World War II long since ended, we had neither depression nor global
war and the task was to develop improvements that would enable
farmers to achieve stability, prosperity, and a better living under peace-
time conditions. We could not go on indefinitely under the old pro-
grams without piling up mountainous surpluses, losing markets, wast-
ing resources, running up heavy dollar losses and, most important of all,
endangering the economic independence of our farm people.

There was no question about what must be done. We had to build
a new workable farm program. The policy of drifting along the path of
least resistance by simply renewing the old programs had to be stopped.
The welfare of the whole country was involved.

That was the way we saw the situation; but we recognized that others
might and did look at it differently, arriving at different conclusions.

Environment and history influences everyone's thinking. Many per-
sons sincerely believed that high supports protected the farmer's income.
Some blindly followed the lead of the Farmers Union.

A number of Congressmen saw the problem through political glasses
only. They had committed themselves so fully to 90 per cent supports
that changing could mean defeat, they thought, in the next election;
others again saw this issue as one not so important as to merit a party
split on it.

Economics, emotions, and party and sectional loyalties had become
enormously intertwined with the farm issue, much as they had in the
slavery issue just before the Civil War.

I58 CROSS FIRE

Dozens of arguments could be advanced for maintaining the status
quo; to me they were specious, but I recognized they might not
seem so to others. What it all came to, however, was this: The Demo-
crats, by and large, were committed by their party philosophy and
platform to more and more government in agriculture. The Republicans,
by and large, were committed by philosophy and platform to less
and less government in agriculture, until government was doing only
what was necessary and what farmers, through cooperative self-help,
could not do for themselves.

It seemed quite clear to us that to be successful a farm program
would need three characteristics: sound economic principle, farmer
approval, and acceptability to the Congress.

A program which sought to give political answers to economic prob-
lems would eventually collapse under the weight of accumulated economic
pressures.

A program based too narrowly on the thinking of professional
people, and lacking farmer approval, would be rejected in the field.

One that leaned too heavily on the desires of well-intentioned but
inadequately informed farmers could not get the support of the Con-
gress.

During the fall in many meetings we concentrated on working out
the details of our program — with people in the Department, with the
Agricultural Advisory Commission, heads of farm organizations and
farm groups, Congressional leaders and the President himself.

In mid-November, I lunched at the White House with the President,
Milton Eisenhower, and Allan Kline. I was somewhat disappointed
with what seemed to me a rather timid reaction on Allan's part. The
President, I felt, was disappointed also, although when I telephoned
later in the day he assured me that progress had been made. The next
day I gave a dinner for Secretary Humphrey, General Walter Bedell
Smith of the State Department, and Roland Hughes, Assistant Director
of the Budget, together with some of my staff and Dr. W. I. Myers,
chairman of the Agricultural Advisory Commission. We reached agree-
ment on the need for a surplus removal program.

On December 11, I presented a full scale explanation of the program
at Cabinet, using charts and other visuals. Knowing that success de-
pended to a great degree on the enthusiastic support of the Cabinet, I
prepared for this assignment as carefully as a manager of a big corpora-
tion about to go before his board of directors to sell them on the
merits of a new business venture. In a sense that's what we were trying

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER I59

to do. The night before Cabinet, I put in a solid two hours just going
over my presentation.

At 8 o'clock next morning, before Cabinet, I met with three staff
members for a final review.

This preparation paid dividends. The presentation went smoothly;
beyond doubt the Cabinet seemed impressed. As for the President, he
showed by his comments and questions a determination to back the
proposals with all the force of his personality and office.

On December 15, I conferred separately with Senator Aiken and
Congressman Hope. The meeting with Aiken was long and satis-
fying; that with Hope long and frustrating. He seemed more interested
in outdoing the Democrats than in anything else. He still wanted to
continue the 90 per cent of parity program.

On December 17 and 18, I presented the recommendations again
to the legislative leaders who had been called to the White House for
that purpose.

They included Senator William Knowland, Majority Leader; Eu-
gene D. Millikin, Chairman of the Republican Conference; Homer
Ferguson, Chairman of the Senate Majority Ruling Committee; Styles
Bridges, President Pro Tempore; Congressman Joe Martin, Speaker
of the House; Charlie Halleck, Majority Leader; Leslie C. Arends, Re-
publican Whip; and Leo Allen, Chairman of the House Rules Com-
mittee.

Again, the presentation was well received. Nevertheless, some of the
legislators revealed a frighteningly inadequate knowledge of the farm
problem and the dangers of continuing the present program. Con-
gressman Hope, however, had now come around to endorsing the
program in general, though expressing some misgivings about the ad-
visability of moving for a new plan at that particular time.

A few days later, I had another conference with the President. We
made plans for him to send a special message on agriculture to the
Congress on January 11, 1954. This message would be the opening
salvo in the battle for our proposed program — a battle which, once
begun, could continue ferociously for many months.

This was the year in which the nation fought off a
recession, and the President proved he had learned
a thing or two about politics. The Army-McCarthy
squabble was featured on TV. The Nautilus, first
atomic-powered submarine, was launched. Racial
segregation in public schools was ruled unconstitu-
tional by the Supreme Court Nation-wide tests of
the Salk vaccine against polio were begun.

At Caracas, Venezuela, the nations of this hemi-
sphere passed a resolution calling for joint action,
when necessary, against communism in the West-
ern Hemisphere. Shortly thereafter the pro-Com-
munist government in Guatemala was overthrown.

Across the Pacific in Indochina, following pro-
longed crises, an armistice was signed.

For me, personally, 1954 was marked by long
and strenuous struggle on the agricultural legisla-
tive front and my first active participation in po-
litical campaigning.

1954

13

Don't Make a Career of Chasing Cows

The year came in like a hurricane.

Busy day followed busy day, with the special message dominating
all our activities. On January 4, I visited with the President ironing
out further details of the message. We had been having a good deal of
discussion about something that at first glance might seem trivial, but
which I considered vital. This was the form in which the message should
go to the Congress. Some of the White House staff wanted the USDA to
prepare and send up an agricultural message, accompanied by a letter
from the President. I wanted the President to send the agricultural
message, period.

We had to get it across to Congress and the country that this wasn't
a Benson recommendation, but an Eisenhower program. Long and hard
I argued that we must not blunt the force of our drive even before we
began it.

On January 5, I received this note.

Dear Ezra:

All right, we'll do it your way.

As a result of this decision, I have given to Sherman Adams the draft
of the letter that he previously showed to you and asked him to in-
corporate some of its thoughts in the early part of the entire plan. I
will then sign at the bottom of the whole thing.

As ever,

Dwight Eisenhower

Next day Sherman Adams and Bryce N. Harlow of the White
House staff came to the Department and spent some time with me
going over the special message. I also had luncheon with Senator Aiken,

164 CROSS FIRE

at which time I gave him a preview of the message as then drafted
and we discussed it.

Later that afternoon I conferred with Congressmen H. Carl Andersen
of Minnesota, Jamie L. Whitten of Mississippi, and Walt Horan of
Washington, seeking their support. It proved fruitless.

On Friday, January 8, I conferred more successfully on the message
with Senators Everett Dirksen of Illinois and Harry Byrd of Virginia,
and later with Congressman Hope. I also made a number of tape
recordings explaining the new program. These would be sent to hun-
dreds of local farm radio shows to inform the country about our pro-
posals.

On Saturday, January 9, Senator Edward J. Thye of Minnesota met
me in his office to discuss the message. Thye, a kindly, amiable gentle-
man, had a slight case of political jitters. Like so many others in the
upper Midwest, he entertained misgivings about the political effect of
any proposal to even modify the existing program.

Later that morning Director of the Budget Joseph M. Dodge and
I visited with the President on some budgetary questions related to
the new proposals.

After lunch, I made more tape recordings on our recommendations
for use by the Farm Bureau throughout the nation. At 4 p.m., I joined
about 15 Senators in Senator Knowland's office, where we talked for
an hour about the message. Senator Aiken gave the proposals a big
boost; others were noncommittal. Then, with some of the staff, I went
to Congressman Hope's office to explain the message to a dozen Rep-
resentatives. Here we found little encouragement; many of them seemed
to want only to out-give the Democrats in gratuities and subsidies.

On Sunday, January 10, the ox in the mire again had to be rescued.
From nine in the morning until late afternoon three USDA men,
several of the White House staff, and I labored to smooth out passages
of the message. The President had had a good deal of pressure from
some Republicans in the Congress to "sweeten, soften, and tone it all
down. 55 I fought these off. At about 4 p.m. we thought the draft was
ready for a final look by the President and we took it to his office.
Some of his aides made a last attempt to insert weakening clauses, but
these, too, we beat off, and the President finally initialed and approved
the draft, and had it sent to be mimeographed.
Just what were the proposals? Briefly, these:

Price supports for wheat, corn, cotton, rice and peanuts would be-
come flexible. Instead of a fixed support level of 90 per cent of parity,
the support would "flex" between 75 per cent and 90 per cent. When

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 165

the supply of a commodity was big, the level of support would go
down, say to 80 or 75 per cent, to discourage overproduction of the
next crop, but still provide reasonable price protection.

The 90 per cent program for tobacco would be continued because the
surplus problem had not yet developed for tobacco as it had for other
commodities. For dairy products, meat animals, poultry and eggs, fruits
and vegetables, sugar, and feed grains other than corn, we already had
discretionary authority and we asked for no changes. There should
be a new program for wool.

Excess reserves of wheat, cotton, vegetable oils, and possibly some
dairy products should be set aside — frozen — or insulated from the
market to give the new flexible supports a chance to work.

A gradual shift should be made from the old method of figuring
parity (based on 1910-14 conditions) to a new or modernized parity
formula.

Agricultural Conservation Program funds should be used, where
needed, to aid farmers in making adjustments when diverting acres
from production of surplus crops to other uses.

Most of these ideas had been proposed before, and some authority
to carry them out already existed. Only a minimum of new legislation
would be needed, but this vital minimum was the very heart of our
proposals. Actually, the proposals agreed in large measure with the
recommendations of the Democrats in 1947 and 1948 for a peace-
time, long-range farm program.

In October 1947, officials of the Department of Agriculture had
presented to Congress their views on long-range agricultural policy.
Secretary Clinton P. Anderson's testimony was for a flexible system. "I
want to stress particularly my belief that any system which forces us
to waste what we have produced is doomed," he said. "Nobody likes it,
and the people won't stand for it over a long period of time."

And the Democratic Party platform of 1948 stated: Specifically, we
favor a permanent system of flexible price supports for agricultural
products . ♦ .

On May 14, 1948, President Harry S. Truman, addressing a mes-
sage on agricultural legislation to the Congress of the United States,
said: "First, the Congress should enact legislation providing on a per-
manent basis for a system of flexible price supports for agricultural com-
modities."

He continued, "Many shifts in production will have to be made, and
flexible price supports will help us make them in an orderly manner."

A Republican-controlled Congress provided for flexible supports be-

x 66 CROSS FIRE

tween 60 and 90 per cent of parity in the Agricultural Act of 1948.
In 1949 a Democratic-controlled Congress provided for the same
method of support, though within a more limited range— 75 to 90
per cent. These sober, bipartisan attempts of the Congress to work out
a new farm program adapted to a peacetime situation, were passed
with support from both parties and were signed into law by President
Truman.

But they were never permitted to go into effect. The Democrats, claim-
ing as an excuse "emergency conditions" — actually political conditions
— set back again and again the date at which flexibility would become
applicable. Finally in 1952, rigid supports at 90 per cent of parity
were made mandatory on certain crops through 1954.

Far from proposing anything revolutionary, therefore, we simply
sought to get going on the right track.

This program, as IVe mentioned, did not spring full-blown out
of the fertile minds of my staiL It was shaped and chiseled, formed
and molded out of thousands of ideas proposed by thousands of in-
terested persons.

I've mentioned the 16,000 letters containing suggestions on price
support programs. It seemed that every person whose pet farm plan
had been rejected by previous administrations, hopefully submitted his
brain child again. Other farm planners, newly venturing into this
field, offered their services. Overnight, many folks became experts:
Farmers, businessmen, Congressmen, lawyers, clergymen, and people
from every walk of life. Plans came by mail, by wire, by phone, and
some were delivered in person; scrawled on postcards, dressed up with
fancy diagrams, published in illustrated brochures, they came; each
enthusiastic advocate sure that he had the solution. Good or bad, we
appreciated the motive that prompted them.

Across our desks had come two-price plans, strict production control
plans, acreage retirement plans, marketing agreement plans, compensatory
payment plans, plans based on the signs of the zodiac, and plans to do
away with all plans. A special research committee evaluated them;
each proposal received consideration, the meritorious ones careful study.
Perhaps the scope of the country's interest is better attested by the off-
beat proposals than by the more reasonable ones. To show you how
suggestions ran the gamut, here are a few of the more bizarre:

Give the surplus back to the farmers, who could then take out new
government loans on it. This would increase farm income and take the
surplus off the government's hands.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 167

Give the surpluses to pregnant women. (What these mothers-to-be
should do with bushels of wheat and corn, bales of cotton, and pounds
of raw tobacco was left to our imagination.)

An Iowan suggested what he called a "crop shelf plan." It would
have permitted U.S. farmers to produce without restriction, the surplus
being sold or given to the needy overseas. This differed in name only
from other proposals stemming from the belief that the export market
offers a mammoth, if not unlimited, outlet for any U.S. farm commodity
that happens to be in excess supply.

A professor from the Netherlands sent me a mathematical equation to
explain "all economic, social and political phenomena." With footnotes,
it covered three pages. Unable to make head or tail of it, we sent it to
econometricians in the Department. After laboring on it in fascination,
they, too, threw up their hands. It made me feel better to learn that
even these wise men of the Department were stumped.

An Indiana farmer claimed that he could forecast weather twelve
months ahead. With advance information on rainfall, we'd be able to
tell in early spring how many acres farmers should plant. During the
haymaking season, this gentleman claimed he'd predict the weather by
the hour, on an individual farm basis, for a fee, "with 90 per cent
accuracy." He refused to divulge his method, but asked that the De-
partment finance his further studies, so that his service could be made
country-wide. We referred him to the Weather Bureau.

Another gentleman kept telling us that the Department of Agriculture
was causing cancer, tuberculosis, and all manner of ailments. The
medical profession, he asserted, was allied for profit with the food
manufacturers and the drug people in undermining American health,
and the Department of Agriculture was the dupe of this conspiracy. His
solution: reveal these villains for what they are. His solution to another
problem: build all houses at least 300 feet above sea level in the shape
of boats, so that tidal waves caused by atomic bombs would not wipe
out our cities. This gentleman looked like a benevolent grandfather and
seemed perfectly rational except on these subjects.

One man wrote that he had the solution to our problems and how
much was it worth to us to learn it? — a substantial sum, please. In our
reply we asked for a general outline of his thinking— we did not leave
even such unpromising stones unturned. Highly displeased with our
caution, he said he "would take his plan elsewhere." I suspect he
probably needed price supports for his ideas.

A Wisconsin man came to my office not to offer a farm plan but to
serve notice that he was ignoring his wheat allotment, that he would

l68 CROSS FIRE

not pay the prescribed penalty, and that he would fight the case in
every court in the land. He said he had previously fought NRA, and
we could expect the same treatment. Somehow, I felt inclined to be in
his corner.

Still another man sent us a note explaining that he "would have writ-
ten earlier to complain about my cotton acreage allotment, but I did
not get the allotment until this morning." He evidently had made up
his mind that his allotment would be too small even before our experts
had figured it. Actually I suspect he was right, so far as efficient opera-
tion was concerned.

One lady, worried about the high U.S. birth rate, was more con-
cerned with prospective shortages than with surpluses. She scolded me
for the size of our family.

Three Wyoming ranchers believed that we could improve cattle prices
by reporting a decline in the number of cattle on farms. They flew in
to Washington, D.C., at their own expense to sell the Crop Reporting
Board on the idea of doctoring the figures. It was no sale. Among other
proposals to stop the decline in cattle prices were plans for limiting the
weight at which cattle could be marketed, spaying heifers, castrating
bulls, regulating marketings, lowering price supports on corn, and shut-
ting off imports.

One day a certain doctor (of philosophy or science, not medicine)
showed up from Germany, with an interpreter and a grandiose scheme
for reorganizing German agriculture. He wanted to consolidate German
land holdings and reduce German tariffs on agricultural products. To
effect this he wished to borrow $30,000,000. A checkup revealed that
he had no official connection with Chancellor Adenauer's government
in Bonn and represented only himself.

A number of proposals originally offered in the depression years of
the early 1930s came in, some on frayed paper, yellowed with time.

One especially noteworthy visitor was a man of about seventy, some-
what deaf but full of vigor. He wanted to see me, but instead to his
very obvious disappointment, he drew as an audience one of my assist-
ants. He had a "young wife" whom he had just married and of whom
he was immensely proud. One of her accomplishments was the ability
to take shorthand; had it been possible to "see the Secretary," he would
have had her "take it all down." Presumably my assistant was not ex-
pected to say anything nearly as important because the wife was waiting
out in the car, "resting her feet." This was because they had walked all
morning and while the old gentleman was "fresh as a daisy," his young
wife "couldn't take it."

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 169

This man, I learned later, shouted in my assistant's ear without stop-
ping for the better part of an hour, recounting boyhood experiences and
his recent romance, touching upon almost every conceivable subject
except agriculture. The assistant's secretary used the various time-
honored devices to break it up; the buzzer, the telephone; reminders of
appointments. This old man could have given a leech lessons in clinging.
He stayed.

In desperation, my aide finally excused himself, ran out of the room,
rushed down the hall and started around the patio, which lies in the
center of the building. He ducked into someone's office and stayed five
minutes. When he came out he looked up and down the corridor before
making a beeline for his office. On the far side of the patio, he met his
erstwhile visitor, coming from the opposite direction. There followed
another ten minutes of shouted exchanges, this time in the open cor-
ridor. At long last my resourceful aide walked into an elevator. His
persistent visitor followed, still shouting and just as the elevator door
was closing, my assistant stepped out. Thus terminated this prolonged
interview.

In citing these lighter incidents, I do not disparage in any way the
efforts people made to help us out of our agricultural difficulties. We
appreciated the interest of all those who took the trouble to tell us what
they were thinking, even those obviously unfamiliar with the problem.
It was good to have so many thinking about it. And from the stacks
upon stacks of missives, we did draw some valuable nuggets.

Monday, January 11, 1954 — D-Day. Weatherwise, it was the worst
day of the winter. An unusually heavy snowstorm during the night
caused the closing of schools in outlying Virginia and Maryland counties
and in the District of Columbia as well. Traffic that morning barely
crawled. But in the USDA the pace was anything but slow, the tempera-
ture anything but low.

About noon the President delivered "for the consideration of the
Congress a number of recommendations affecting the nation's agricul-
ture."

"The agricultural problem today," the message began, "is as serious
and complex as any with which the Congress will deal in this session.
Immediate action is needed to arrest the growing threat to our present
agricultural program and to prevent the subsequent economic distress
that could follow in our farming areas."

Then the President went on to reassert his assurances that the ex-
isting program would be faithfully carried out through 1954. This he

170 CROSS FIRE

said "was a moral and legal commitment. Along with the fulfillment
of this commitment," he continued, "an unending effort has proceeded
in the past 12 months to provide the American farmers their full share
of the income produced by a stable, prosperous country. This effort
requires for success a new farm program adjusted to existing conditions
in the nation's agriculture.

"This message presents to the Congress that new program."

The rest of January 1 1 was one of my busiest times in eight years as
a member of the Cabinet.

At 2 o'clock that afternoon I held a news conference. I began with a
brief statement:

"Ladies and gentlemen, welcome. In view of the weather, I presume
this represents the survival of the fittest. I am very happy to have this
opportunity of meeting with you today. . . .

"We've had only one objective — that's to find the very best possible
solution to the farm problem. Something that would be good for agricul-
ture — that would help to promote a sound and prosperous and free
agriculture — and also a program that would be fair to all of the tax-
payers. A program that's workable. That's been our objective. . . .

"I'd like to say this: The President has devoted more time to this
problem than I ever expected he'd be able to. He has taken a personal
interest. He has spent many hours with me personally, with the mem-
bers of the Advisory Committee, and in consultation with others. And
I am sure that he has sincerely tried to find the best solution to the
farm problem.

"Personally, I feel good about the recommendations that have been
made."

The transcript of the conference covered 19 pages; questions asked
and answered totaled 89.

That night I participated in a television interview on the DuMont
network from 9 to 9 : 30 at which we discussed the major points in the
President's message.

And in a radio broadcast that evening, I said: "The President be-
lieves firmly in an old American principle that when a thing is wrong, do
something about it. I second this idea wholeheartedly. When a fence
is down, don't make a career out of chasing stray cows. Don't hire a
crew of men to chase cows. And don't spend a lot of money for new
cows to replace those that get lost. The thing to do is fix the fence.
When something is wrong, find the basic cause and do something about
it."

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 171

It was a time to spell out the problems.

"Now, I believe most fair-minded people agree that something is
wrong with the farm program that is now in effect. Something is wrong
with a price support program when consumers are denied the benefits
of abundance, yet farmers are denied a stable income.

"Something is manifestly wrong when almost 100,000,000 pounds
of wool is in government storage — yet this country imports two-thirds
of all the wool it uses. Something is wrong when the government owns
250,000,000 pounds of butter yet housewives say they cannot afford to
eat butter because it costs too much.

"Something is wrong when the government invests $5,000,000,000
to support farm prices — and still the buying power of farmers' net in-
come last year was lower than in any year since 1940.

"Something is wrong when, in spite of all this effort and expense,
farm income has dropped in five of the last six years. The sole exception
was 19513 the year following the Korean invasion.

"Something is wrong when the government invests $2,000,000,000
to support wheat at 90 per cent of parity, yet the average market price
of wheat is 82 per cent of parity, as the most recent figures show.

"Something is wrong when the government invests over three quarters
of a billion dollars to support corn at 90 per cent of parity, and the
average market price of corn is 79 per cent of parity.

"Something is certainly wrong with a price support program when,
over the years, farmers get better prices for their non-supported crops
than they do for their supported crops.

"Something is wrong when 25,000,000 productive acres must be
shifted out of corn, wheat, and cotton — by government regulation.

"Something is wrong when the foreign market for U.S. cotton falls
off by almost half in a period of 18 months.

"Something is wrong when the foreign market for our wheat falls by
almost half.

"Something is wrong when huge stocks of government-held com-
modities jeopardize our farm prosperity and even endanger our free
market system. . . ."

Once again we waited to hear the newspaper choir. This time, the
editorial comment came in good volume and singing, for us, a cheerful
melody.

". . . the program makes a lot of sense to us and we urge Congress to
take Ike's advice and give it early approval," said the Chicago Sun-Times.

172 GROSS FIRE

"President Eisenhower's farm message puts the Nation's agricultural
problem clearly before the public and points the right way toward a freer,
less regimented farm economy/' added the San Francisco Chronicle.

". . . wisdom dictates acceptance of the Eisenhower proposals for flexible
supports designed and managed to reduce surpluses by directing production
as the state of supply and demand may indicate/' co mm ented the Com-
mercial Appeal (Memphis, Tennessee).

The Christian Science Monitor put in: ". . . It has taken courage for
President Eisenhower to offer this program. But there are millions of
farmers who also want freedom, and the battle may prove that courageous
battling for it is good politics in the long run. We hope so."

"Taken as a whole, President Eisenhower's recommendations for agricul-
tural legislation represent a common-sense effort, not to solve the farm
problem at one dramatic stroke, but to reverse trends which have resulted
in conditions unsatisfactory to farmers, taxpayers and consumers alike,"
said the Philadelphia Inquirer.

14

"It Looks Like a Mouse"

Someone once sent me a piece of writing called the "Corn Farmers'
Lament" :

We corn farmers are in a devil of a jam [it read]. Whatever we do we're
wrong. If we increase corn acreage we're selfish — we already have too much
corn. But if we cut it we're foolish — our corn acreage allotments next year
will be based on our crop history.

If we feed our corn to cattle, our banker says we're recklessly bucking a
trend. If we sell it to the government, we're subsidized money-grabbers.

If we fertilize to the hilt, do away with poor paying oats, follow other
college recommendations, we're digging our own grave with surpluses. If
we don't do these things, we're poor farmers.

If we try to raise the most of the best paying crop, we're blindly pursuing
dollars. If we try to cut our corn acreage because of oversupply, we're
suckers. 'You can't do it alone.'

If we say we fear surpluses and Congress should do something now,
we're fear-mongers, worry-warts, and boat-rockers. If we don't speak up,
then we're sheep and gutless descendants of pioneers selling our birthrights
for a mess of controls.

See what I mean? What would you do?

What farmers should do, I thought, was to hear out the President's
recommendations, have a chance to understand what was at stake, and
make their wishes known to Congress. President Eisenhower had been
elected to bring about a change.

We set out to help.

Flora and I sat down to a long talk one night after all the children
were in bed. We had a decision to make. "The next months will be
crucial," I told her. While the Congress digested the President's message
and started to consider new legislation, we had a tremendous job of

174 CROSS FIRE

education to do throughout the country. "People don't know what's at
stake. When they learn, they'll support us. But they've got to be told."

Flora looked at me, half-smiling. She was always two jumps ahead
and she knew what was coming.

"It means travel, lots of it. For a while this will just be a place to
hang my hat, take an occasional meal, spend a night or two between
trips. All the family responsibilities will fall on you again,"

"If it's a necessary part of your job," Flora said simply, "then you
must do it. I want you to do it You must fight for what you know is
right. Don't worry — the times you're home will be all the sweeter."

That was the truth and we both knew it. You lose nothing by doing
your duty. We had learned that long ago when we had interrupted
courtship to go on our missions.

Immediately following the special message on agriculture, I embarked
on an intensive speaking program to explain the new farm proposals to
audiences in every part of the country. In little more than a month, be-
sides many informal talks, I made eleven major speeches; three in the
Corn Belt, two in Oklahoma, one in Colorado, two in the deep South,
one in California, one in New York, and one in Washington. The
audiences varied from specialized meetings of several hundred to gen-
eral groups as large as 4000. 1 testified before Congressional Committees,
participated in several press conferences and radio and TV programs.

These talks hit hard on the need for a change in the price support
approach.

Farmers, I said, would far rather produce for markets than for
storage — but the choice of alternatives was not now being made by
farmers alone, but very largely by government through its farm policies.
We agreed that when government policy is not right, it puts the corn
farmer and the livestock producer, too, as the "Lament" put it, in a
devil of a jam. Price support at $1.60 a bushel for corn is not a
panacea that solves all farm problems — sometimes it creates new prob-
lems.

The situation was one that could no longer be disguised with clever
words. The nation could not continue indefinitely under a program that
was not working, that could not be made to work in a peacetime
economy, that eventually was sure to break down under its own weight,
with disastrous consequences for farmers, consumers, and America.

The existing program of rigid supports required strict production
controls. But America did not become a great country by restricting
production. Progress and prosperity do not come from idle land any

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 175

more than they do from shutdown factories. We need production for
progress, efficiency for progress, wisely used abundance for progress.

How many times, I asked, must agriculture be kicked in the teeth
before something effective is done to put a stop to it? "There are some
among us who say: Yes, your program is right, but it's poor politics.

"To them I say: Gentlemen, in what country are you living? Do you
seriously believe that the American fanner, and the American consumer,
are so foolish, or so selfish, that they cannot, or will not, choose what is
right over so-called political expediency?

"For my part I refuse to believe that what is right is not good politics.
I refuse to believe that honesty is not the best policy."

Time and again as I began to talk, there was a latent hostility in the
audience. But the average citizen of this country is fair and as I pointed
out the failures of the 90 per cent rigid price support program, one could
sense a definite change.

Even some of those who remained unconvinced recognized that
there were two sides to the question; I might possibly be talking
sense. After traveling, I returned to my desk confident that we were
gaining a little ground throughout the country.

If only we could have been equally sure of progress before the Con-
gressional committees.

Relatively few citizens know what it takes to get a controversial law
through Congress. Most people believe that all that is necessary is to
get a lawyer to write up a bill, a couple of members of Congress to in-
troduce it, a few more to take the floor and speak in its favor and finally
the two chambers will vote and the bill will be either accepted or de-
feated.

There is immeasurably more to it than that. If this were all you did
to help get a bill enacted into law, you'd wait forever for it to come
to the floor.

Programs must be worked out with the most meticulous care, then
put into the form of a bill, then introduced by a Senator or Repre-
sentative who sends it to the clerk of the Senate or House, who gives
it a number and a title. The bill is referred to a committee. Here it can
be killed immediately by the committee's "tabling it." If the committee
decides to take up the bill, hearings are held, with experts testifying for
and against it. Members of the committee themselves talk about the
bill pro and con. Amendments may be offered, accepted, or rejected.
Finally, the committee votes on whether to report out the bill. Here

I76 GROSS FIRE

again it is life or death. If the committee approves, the bill goes to
the floor of the Senate or House.

Now the bill is read to the members by the clerk, sentence for
sentence, word for word. The bill may be debated on the floor, amend-
ments offered, accepted, or rejected.

Then, at long last, the measure comes up for judgment, so to speak
It is put to a vote.

Still, this is only the end of the beginning. The bill must still go
through the House or Senate, whichever the case may be, where again
it may be killed, passed, or perhaps passed with amendments.

If this last is the case, then joint committees appointed by each the
Senate and the House will strive to iron out differences and come up
with a measure that is mutually acceptable. Should both Houses of
Congress accept the bill as brought back by the committees, the measure
goes to the President. He may sign it or veto it. If he signs it, the nation
has a new law. If he vetoes the bill, it goes back to the House in which it
originated, along with the President's written objections. The members
debate the merits of these objections, after which they again vote by
roll call. Should two-thirds of the members vote to override the veto,
the bill goes to the other House. If both Houses pass it by two-thirds
votes, the bill is law. If either fails to muster such a vote, the bill is dead.

This is the procedure by which our laws are made. But this bare
recited reveals nothing of the arduous preparation, the intense efforts
to obtain support, the long hour upon hour of explanation before the
committees and in private, the pressures and cross pressures, the com-
promising upon lesser points in order to hold the line on essentials, the
telephoning, the urging, the exhorting, the waiting that went into the
Agricultural Act of 1954.

On Thursday, January 28, I appeared before the House Subcom-
mittee on Agricultural Appropriations and went back again on February
2 and 3. Throughout these hours of questioning, it was obvious that the
critics on the subcommittee did not want to talk appropriations; they
wanted only to discredit the proposed new legislation.

Once again the sharpest exchanges were with Representative Whit-
ten. He pursued his favorite tactic of trying to bury me under a verbal
avalanche. Orating far longer than anybody else on the committee, he
made his "questions" long drawn-out speeches. He would ramble around
a subject, repeating himself. He usually made sure that he had the last
word.

The primary function of this subcommittee was to consider and make

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 1 77

recommendations on the appropriations for the operation of the USDA
during the coming fiscal year. Our legislative proposals on the levels of
price support required no new appropriations whatever. Yet we went
on hour after hour, on three different days, arguing about price support
philosophy.

At the conclusion of my testimony on February 3, 1954, Congressman
Whitten and I pretty well summed up our conflicting views in a long
exchange. I cite Mr. Whitten at length because he had obviously pre-
pared this speech carefully and it presented his best case.

"Mr. Secretary/ 5 Whitten said, "I have listened with a great deal of
interest to your views and the discussion before this subcommittee. I
know you are short of time as we are. I wish it could continue further.
But at the conclusion of these hearings I would like to point out the
fact that this record discloses that the American consumer is eating
more food and better food than ever before in history; that for the
last year a smaller percentage of the dollar paid for food has gone to
the farmer than in many years. Consumers have more and better food
than ever before.

"The record shows it takes less hours of work to pay for this food
than ever before. The record discloses, as it now stands, that there have
been from 11 to 13 freight rate increases since World War II, judging
by the way you want to describe it; the record will show that handling
costs in all the angles that go into the food as it is delivered to the
consumer in the stores, that all of that has increased to the point that
it takes a much larger share of the consumer dollar that is spent
for the basic food. The record will show that in connection with
World War II, that we gave firm contracts to industry; that we paid
them at least cost plus a profit; that we gave them approximately
$16,000,000,000 to reconvert after the war was over, in order to keep
industrial labor employed.

"This record shows that, with minor exceptions, the chief contract
offered to the farmers for the increased production requested of him,
during the war period, was about 90 per cent of the comparative pur-
chasing power that he had in 1909 to 19 14. This record will disclose
that under that program, during the period of that program and since,
the government many times has issued export restrictions to keep these
commodities from being sold on world markets at any price. And the
record is conclusive that many farm commodities in the hands of the
Commodity Credit Corporation are not and have not been with regard
to the majority of commodities, offered on the world markets at com-
petitive prices."

I78 CROSS FIRE

He played the record one more time.

"The record shows that with respect to many other commodities in
the hands of the Commodity Credit Corporation, that section 32 funds,
whereby 30 per cent of the export duties are set aside to offer such
commodities at competitive prices, that such funds have not been used
though they have been with others. Now, since the 80th Congress passed
the 1948-49 act which sets up these so-called flexible support prices,
ranging from 75 to 90 per cent which could have the effect only of pull-
ing down these commodities already at 90 per cent insofar as price sup-
ports are concerned, and since the transfer to the new parity formula
from the old could only have the effect of reducing the support level
for those now operating under the old, don't you think that it is in-
cumbent upon you as the head of this great Department of Agriculture
to make a special effort to point out these facts? Do you think it fair
that this responsibility of the cost and of the present buildup should be
attributed to the farm program? Do you think that?"

"That is a fair question," Andersen said.

I thought it fair, too, but before I could reply, the Congressman was
off again in full gallop,

Whitten went on. "Don't you feel that the play being given to the
butter purchased on your order at 90 per cent as Secretary when it
could have been 75, is a little unfair unless you point out that these
commodities are not offered on the world market at competitive prices;
don't you feel as we should point out that this government asked for
such buildup of production during the war, without a firm contract
being offered the American farmer to buy those commodities; don't
you feel you should point out the fact that we did not pay the same
reconversion cost, which we paid to industry? Unless these facts are
pointed out don't you feel that many could well believe the publicity
going out is for the purpose of putting over the flexible scale of sup-
ports?

"Don't you think it leaves the Department open to the charges that
the Department in stressing one-half the story as against showing the
situation under which these commodities have been built up has been
fighting farm supports?"

Andersen asked: "You have concluded your question, Mr. Whitten?
Mr. Secretary, you may answer that in full, as you see fit."

"Yes," I said, managing to get in just one word, a monosyllable at
that.

"Certainly you have the right to differ with me as to the facts,"

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 179

Whitten put in. "I am quoting from proof that I have asked to be put
in the record. There has been criticism of your Department for sending
out information in support of the flexible supports. Prior to you they
criticized Mr. Brannan for sending out information in support of the
Brannan plan. Since you came out for the Brannan plan for wool I
have not heard that criticism. My answer then was that if Mr. Bran-
nan would tell all the story I thought it will help defeat the Brannan
plan. I may say to you, Mr. Secretary — if you will tell all the story
about this flexible support which is really sliding scales from 90 down-
ward for storable commodities now supported at 90 per cent — that is the
only way it can flex. If the whole story is presented, I hope you will
send out more and more and more of it."

At last it was my turn, I waited a few seconds to be absolutely sure.
"Mr. Whitten, first of all I wish to point out some of the inaccuracies in
what I consider to be a series of allegations rather than a question.
Then I shall vigorously defend my statements regarding price supports.

"You maintain that under the Administration's program the level of
price support could change in only one direction — down. This is un-
true. Let me show two separate and distinct ways in which the level
of price support could rise:

"One, the index of prices paid by farmers could rise, causing the
dollar level of price support to be higher than at present.

"Two, if an emergency should occur, under existing law, which we
propose to continue, the level of price support could be increased above
90 per cent of parity.

"In addition, there is nothing to prevent the free market price from
rising above present levels and above any support level if supply and
demand conditions warrant.

"The charter of the Department of Agriculture in its organic act,
which was approved by President Lincoln in 1862, charged the De-
partment with responsibility for gathering and disseminating useful
agricultural information." That seemed worth driving home.

"I am reporting useful information, in my judgment, when I divulge
the cost of programs administered by the Department.

"It is useful to know that present programs are pricing American
farm products out of domestic and world markets.

"It is useful to know that the basic commodities, favored under pres-
ent legislation, bring in only 23 per cent of the farm income from
marketings,

"It is useful to know that present price supports offer very little to

l80 CROSS FIRE

the 3,500,000 of our farm operators whose production is so small that
price supports mean very few extra dollars.

"It is useful to know that our present price program has called for
the production of unneeded commodities from land that should better
have been left in other uses or planted to soil conserving crops.

"I have shown my desire to be helpful in agriculture in a wide
variety of ways, some of them very costly- We have spent heavy sums
on drought relief and beef purchases. I have not hesitated to ask for
substantial sums of public money when the expenditure of such funds
was in the long run interest of agriculture. But I do not ask for the con-
tinuation of a program which will hurt rather than help our farm peo-
ple.

"I believe that there are better ways of demonstrating my sympathy
for farm people than by condoning the perpetuation of a program which
curtails their markets and limits their freedom.

"I recognize the right of farm people to a program which permits
them to meet more effectively the bargaining power of organized labor
and organized industry. But I ask that the right be used wisely rather
than abused. When a program has been developed out of the recom-
mendations of the best informed and most responsible people in agricul-
ture, I feel that I have not only the right but the obligation to make that
program understood."

For some time I anticipated, so to speak, appearing before the House
Committee on Agriculture. This Committee, with Congressman Hope
as chairman, would, I felt sure, be reluctant to support our proposed
changes in the farm program. It grieved me to see it, but on the basis
of past performance it seemed that many of the members were more
interested in getting re-elected in 1954 than in devising any solid,
reasonable, workable farm program.

Having gone before the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry
in January, and having followed this by three appearances before the
House Subcommittee on Agricultural Appropriations, as well as testi-
mony before the Joint Committee for the Economic Report, I felt well
prepared to face the ordeal when it came on March 10.

We had prepared this testimony with utmost care.

It began by stressing the gradualness of the changes advocated.

It pointed out again the shortcomings of the existing program and
the need for taking a "new direction." It provided charts showing the
rapid build-up in the government's carryover stocks of wheat, cotton,
corn, and food fats and oils. (Between 1952 and 1954, the carryover

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER l8l

of wheat and cotton more than tripled, and carryover of corn and fats
and oils almost doubled.)

Another chart showed a rise in CCC investments in farm com-
modities from $2,500,000,000 on December 31, 1952, to $5,700,000,-

000 on December 31, 1953.

A third chart demonstrated that prices for commodities not price
supported had, for the period 1933 to 1954, been consistently above
the prices of the supported food and feed grains, cotton, and tobacco.

In preparing, we had asked ourselves, as anyone does when about to
face Congress: What are the questions most likely to arise?

We finally focused on 11 major questions and these with their an-
swers constituted the core of my testimony.

Several members of the committee told me afterward that the pre-
pared text was the best statement on the agricultural problem that had
ever been presented to the committee while they had served on it. (I
mention this in grateful appreciation of the long hours put in by my
staff in preparing, discussing, and revising this statement.)

Congressman Hope gave me a very good reception, but the ranking
minority member, the Hon. Harold D. Cooley of North Carolina, a
big tobacco grower, went after me with a cleaver. As soon as he had
the opportunity he started in.

"It seems to me," Cooley said, "that we have waited quite a long
time for this auspicious occasion, if I may say so. For fourteen months
you have been our Secretary. I think this is the first time you have
appeared before this committee to discuss general farm legislation or a
general farm program."

Then, by implication at least, he chided us because we had given
only fourteen months to the development of a program. "While you
have labored for fourteen months, many members of this committee
have labored for more than fourteen years."

He concluded: "When you say you have labored for fourteen months,

1 am reminded of the fact that Aesop, six hundred years before Christ,
said, The mountain labored and brought forth a mouse. 5 Frankly it
looks to me like you have presented us with a mouse."

I could have pointed out:

1. Aesop didn't say it. 1

2. We had conducted the most extensive and broadest search for
farm program ideas ever undertaken in this country.

3. It ill-behooved the Congressman to criticize our "delay" of 14

iThe statement in various forms is attributed to Horace, Phaedrus, and Plutarch.

l82 CROSS FIRE

months in preparing a program when the Congress itself had still not
rescinded wartime price incentives nearly nine years after the war had
ended.

But I think I can honestly say that I entertained no feeling of bitterness
toward any of the critics. We are all our Father's children and as such
we must love all men. I think I do. But at times I love some more than
others.

15

"You Can Count on Me"

If our proposals were indeed, as Congressman Cooley said, a mouse, we
had the satisfaction in the months to come of knowing that possibly
no other legislative mouse in 1954 engendered quite as much excite-
ment, oratory, horse-trading, telephoning, buttonholing, cajolery, ex-
hortation, and pleading on Capitol Hill.

When the Congress had last voted on the general issue in 1952, only
13 Senator and 109 Representatives had expressed themselves in favor
of flexibility in price supports ! If these were the only men from previous
Congresses we could count on, even if all the new members of the
House and Senate elected in 1952 voted for flexible price support the
program would still lack a majority. We needed to make a lot of con-
verts. The betting was that we couldn't swing it.

Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, at that time minority leader, seemed to
sum up a general reaction when he said, "I do not intend to support
legislation which would give less protection to our farmers than they
have under the present laws." He didn't allude to the facts that the
"protection" he advocated had cost farmers loss of markets, helped
cause a disastrous decline in farm prices, and threatened farmers' free-
doms.

So far as the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry was con-
cerned, it was generally thought in January that the group stood 9 to 6
against the President's program. Senator Anderson is reported to have
remarked when I was about to make my appearance before this com-
mittee; that Benson will get a friendly reception from Senator Aiken,
the chairman, "but he'll look a long time before he finds another
friendly face — mine "

The reliable Z7. S. News & World Report of March 5, 1954, reported:

184 CROSS FIRE

Ezra Benson, Secretary of Agriculture, apparently is not to be in
heavy demand as a campaign speaker in Republican farm districts
this year. Republicans in Congress from farming areas are slow to
line up back of the Benson plan for flexible support of farm prices.

Benson carried the ball on farm policy. Congress is set to block
him. Ike, coming in late, is to take what he doesn't want or face a
veto fight.

Another newsletter with wide circulation reported: Things are look-
ing bad for Benson and company on Capitol Hill — to put it mildly.
Their farm program now stands less chance than ever for approval.

Speculation that a further decline in farm prices might bring on an
economic recession led observers to assert rather confidently that the
Congress would vote an extension of the old high level supports. In
mid-March, Congressman W. R. Poage of Texas volunteered that
only two or three of the 30 members of the House Committee on
Agriculture would support the President's plan. It appeared that our
proposals might have their throats cut the first time they showed up on
the floor of either the House or the Senate.

From the very beginning, however, I felt sure that we might have
beneath-the-surface strength. Our opponents were attracting a lot of
publicity by means of bellicose statements, but they were not necessarily
winning converts. Senator Kerr, for example, had boasted that he would
nail my hide to barn doors clear across the state of Oklahoma. An in-
teresting idea and a tribute to my size, but such boasting, I felt,
might boomerang.

Some solid, if unspectacular, elements of strength in our position which
most observers overlooked included: the increasing unpopularity of the
existing farm program with non-farm Congressmen and tax-paying non-
farm citizens, who heavily outnumbered those from predominantly
agricultural communities; the opposition of a great majority of the na-
tion's cattlemen to high rigid supports on feed grains; the approval of
our proposals by the Farm Bureau Federation (Allan Kline was now
strongly supporting our plan, calling it "essentially sound" and "for-
ward-looking" ) ; the support of a large number of agricultural experts.
And most important by far, the staunch backing of President Eisenhower.

In April 1954 William M. Blair had an article in The New York
Times Magazine, "The Benson Formula for Serenity." It was a warm
and friendly evaluation of my behavior in reacting to what Blair called
"the harassments he has been suffering in a post that, as one member of

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 185

the farm bloc in Congress put it, C I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. 5 "

The same week that this article appeared, my mail brought an en-
velope containing Blair's piece as it had been torn from The New York
Times Magazine. On the back of the page my correspondent had
scrawled, "Dear Mr. Secretary: Stick to your plan. Count me 100%
for it. Have voted a Republican ticket for 63 years. Hope the Good
Lord will let me add a few more years to it."

It was signed with a well-wisher's name and a Buffalo, New York,
address.

We had other good symptoms.

I was particularly pleased to have two former Democratic Secretaries
of Agriculture in our corner, Clinton P. Anderson and Henry A. Wal-
lace. Whatever criticism might be leveled against Wallace for his myopia
about Russia and communism during the 1940s, I have long deeply
respected him as a student of farming, a pioneer in the development of
hybrid corn, and a far-seeing agricultural statesman. In my opinion
he possesses as broad and deep a knowledge of farming and farm prob-
lems in general as any man who ever attained Cabinet rank. (This view
is widely shared by the* old-timers in the Department.)

Speaking in February at the Farm Forum in Des Moines, Wallace
said, "In the long run the ever-normal granary program can be sus-
tained only by a flexible price support system. . . . My greatest fear is
that farmers themselves may destroy the farm legislative machinery by
asking it to do work for which it was never intended. It would be a
great disaster if the ever-normal granary were converted into an abnor-
mal granary by loans completely out of line with the weather and the
market."

Finally, we had an ace in the hole. Should the Congress fail to enact
legislation the President could approve, the Agricultural Act of 1949,
which itself provided for flexible price supports, would automatically
go into effect in 1955.

If the Congress voted an extension of high level supports, and the
President vetoed it, a two-thirds vote in both Houses would be required
to override. Failing this, the Administration would have the principal
improvement it sought.

In a final showdown therefore, with the backing of the President, we
were in a far stronger position than most observers believed.

The only drawback in this analysis — but a huge drawback — was that
winning this one battle by a veto could conceivably lose us the whole
war.

To force the principle of flexibility upon farmers with over half, or

l86 GROSS FIRE

possibly almost two-thirds of the Congress in opposition might seriously
undermine the Administration's influence in many areas besides agricul-
ture.

We wanted and we needed positive action — the passage of a flexible
support bill.

A series of fierce minor skirmishes during that spring of 1954 pre-
ceded the major clash. Like two wrestlers circling each other looking
for an opening, a weakness, tentatively trying now this hold, now that,
probing, testing each other's strength, each unwilling to commit himself
too soon, each seeking a momentary advantage that could perhaps be
developed later, so the Administration and anti-Administration forces
went around and around.

At a meeting in Wisconsin in January 1954, the Farmers Union
National Dairy Conference, perhaps foreseeing that I was about to
lower dairy supports, demanded a price not of 90, but of 100 per cent
of parity for dairy products, plus the use of direct payments from the
Federal Treasury to insure producers 100 per cent. Jim Patton key-
noted the conference by proclaiming, "This is the time. This is the time
to fight . . . We're going to howl and cry every time we disagree with
the Secretary of Agriculture."

I knew he meant it.

Congressman August H. Andresen of Minnesota, sometimes referred
to in Congress as "Mr. Dairyman," came to my office and bitterly
opposed any adjustment on the price supports of dairy products.

But the best interests of the industry required more realistic prices,
prices which would lead to larger consumption, and this meant lower
supports. On February 15, I announced that dairy products for the
marketing year beginning April 1, 1954, would be supported at 75 rather
than at 90 per cent of parity.

The howl and cry began. The cut was too large. I would wreck the
dairy industry. Benson is the enemy of dairy farmers. These assailed my
ears almost every hour of the day. Senator Robert S. Kerr, again ex-
ercising his somewhat unique talent as a phrase maker, termed me "the
Apostle of Scarcity." (Colorful, especially from a man whose party
had killed little pigs to keep them from breeding, plowed under grow-
ing cotton and poured kerosene over surplus potatoes. Why, the whole
philosophy of rigid supports was based on controlled scarcity.)

Senator Thye and Congressman Andresen of Minnesota and Congress-
man Melvin R. Laird of Wisconsin, all members of my own party,
introduced bills making it illegal for the Secretary of Agriculture to

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 187

lower dairy price support more than 5 percentage points in one year. If
enacted, this legislation would have prevented me from lowering the
support to less than 85 per cent of parity in the coming marketing
season. We were given to understand that no less than 25 Senators had
quickly lined up in support of Senator Thye's bill. The Minnesota
Senator took the fight to the White House, and I went over there one
afternoon to talk it over with Hauge, Martin, Morgan, and Persons
of the President's staff. They tried their best to soften us up on the
dairy question; but I heard nothing to change my conviction that our
action was best for the industry.

The issue, moreover, as Assistant Secretary Ervin Peterson stressed,
directly concerned city people as well as farmers. In speeches and
statements to the press I hammered on the theme that the reduction in
dairy supports could mean a cut of 8 cents per pound in the retail price
housewives were paying for butter; that butter was now going into
storage, not into consumption; and that the only remedy for consumers
and producers alike was to make butter more competitive with margarine
in the market place. We were pleased to see urban Republican and
Democratic Congressmen alike lining up to say that they would look
after consumer interests. But the issue would have to be fought out on
the floor of the Congress.

When I lowered the support on dairy products, I urged that a
vigorous promotion program be inaugurated to increase consumption
and advocated Flora's suggestion for automatic milk dispensers in public
buildings and in schools.

In a second struggle the House Subcommittee on Agricultural Ap-
propriations slapped at the Administration by sharply cutting down our
requests for expanded programs of research and extension, while coming
out for increases in other programs considerably above our recom-
mendations. As usual, their attitude implied that they were more in-
terested in discussing farm policy, which was not their major function,
than in concentrating on the budget requirements for the USD A.

Accusing me of bad faith in not spending all the money that had
been appropriated the year before for several agencies, members of the
subcommittee were particularly critical of the reductions in personnel
made in FHA, REA, and SCS. These agencies were, in our judgment,
overstaffed and overextended. The changes we made saved money for
taxpayers and in no way reduced or weakened service to farmers.

I met with some of the White House staff and representatives of
some of the farm organizations to map strategy on the restoration of

l88 CROSS FIRE

our requested funds for research and extension. We decided to make a
fight of it on the floor of the House.

The strategy paid off. We won a complete victory, and a resounding
rebuff for the subcommittee, when the House voted the full restoration
of our requested funds for research and extension. I noted in my diary:
"While I do not like to see the chairman of a committee or the ranking
member of the minority on the committee embarrassed, these two gentle-
men certainly invited it. I believe that even members of the minority
[Democratic] party felt good about today? s outcome"

One feature of the President's recommendations called for direct
payments to wool producers. Our critics attempted to portray this as an
acceptance of the Brannan Plan. It was not. Wool happens to be one
of the few commodities for which direct payments are sound. U.S.
production of wool falls short of domestic demand. Congress had de-
clared wool a strategic fiber and had set a production goal of 300,000,-
000 pounds but actual production was far below this total. Under the
then existing price support program, and despite a tariff rate of 25^4
cents per pound on imports, foreign wool still undersold U.S. wool in
domestic markets. The result was that wool piled up in government
warehouses, even though total U.S. output fell far short of U.S. needs.
Partly as a consequence of this uneconomic situation, the number of
sheep on U.S. farms had dropped nearly 50 per cent between 1942
and 1950.

Direct payments in this instance served two purposes: they would
stimulate output of domestic wool, and they would enable U.S. wool
to compete in the market against foreign wool.

This was far different from the Brannan Plan which would have
used direct payments for crops already produced in abundance — crops
which accounted for well over half of all farm cash receipts.

According to early reports, however, the majority of the wool growers
represented at the National Wool Growers Conference early in 1954
opposed our proposal and demanded instead a special parity for wool
and a doubling of the existing tariff duty.

Meantime, I had stirred up another hornets' nest by sending a letter
to a presidential board endeavoring to effect settlement of a railroad
labor dispute. I feared the settlement might follow a pattern which had
become all too prevalent: The unions would win a raise with or with-
out fringe benefits; the railroads would increase their freight rates; and
agriculture would foot a major share of the bill. Under authority clearly
vested in the Secretary of Agriculture, I urged the board to find a

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER l8g

solution that would neither result in a strike nor justify an increase in
the freight rates on farm products.

Some 15 labor unions, plus George Meany, president of the AFL,
plus Jim Patton, head of the National Farmers Union, vigorously pro-
tested my action to the President. Patton called my letter an attempt to
"fix the jury" and a disservice to both agriculture and labor. The
unions said I was guilty of "flagrant misconduct" that merited "the
strictest reprimand, if not impeachment."

Actually, the board settled the issue by announcing that it would not
officially consider my letter.

With all this cross fire going on, our opponents probably believed and
hoped we were building up so many hostilities in various segments of
the country and the Congress that our basic farm proposals stood little
chance of enactment. And I must admit that most observers agreed.

A few never stopped trying to split the President and me apart.
They believed, and no doubt rightly, that if they could develop a show
of disaffection between us, our farm proposals would die of political
malnutrition.

But the President knew something about divide and conquer tactics,
too, and he saw through and parried these efforts.

It was a strong bond of loyalty that tied the President to his Cabinet
and the Cabinet to the President. Our personal relationship grew
stronger month by month. On January 20, 1954, the members of the
Cabinet had arranged a little ceremony to celebrate the completion of
the President's first year in office. We gave him a 12/2 inch high, cup-
shaped, Steuben glass bowl etched with scenes from his career. He was
moved and he showed it. He is not only a very friendly man, he is also
deeply sentimental. The very next day I received a note.

The White House
January 20, 1954
Dear Ezra:

The ceremony in the Cabinet Room this morning surprised and delighted
me. Mamie and I will cherish the truly lovely 'Eisenhower Cup 9 during our
lives. Its value for us derives not only from the personal symbolism that
has been carefully worked into its design, but primarily because it comes
from our good friends who have been so largely responsible for the govern-
ment's achievements in this first year of postwar Republican responsibility.
. . . the first anniversary of the Inauguration, gives me one more op-
portunity to thank you for the splendid contributions you have made toward
helping solve the challenging and difficult problems of our times. I know
that, together, our progress will be steady and sure.
With warm personal regards, and my deep thanks,

Sincerely,
D.E.

igO CROSS FIRE

The Democrats and some Republicans kept screaming that the farm
plan proved the President had turned his back on his campaign pledges
of 1952. The President met this head-on in his news conference of
January 27.

Charles S. Von Fremd of the Columbia Broadcasting System asked (as
reported in the New York Times) : "Mr. President, yesterday Senator
Young said that during the campaign you always promised the farmers
nothing less than 90 per cent of parity, and he challenged your flexible
price support at 75 to 90 per cent of parity. I would like to ask you:
do your recent agricultural recommendations represent a change in
your thinking on this matter, and if so, why?"

Well, now, the President said, he'd like to ask a question. Had the
CBS man gone to the trouble of reading the campaign speeches?

"Yes, sir, I did," Von Fremd said.

Did he find that the General ever promised permanent, rigid price
supports at 90 per cent?

"Mr. President," Von Fremd responded, perhaps a little uncom-
fortably, "I am just referring to the remarks of Senator Young yester-
day."

The President said he knew that, but he answered questions directed
to principles and ideas; he was not engaging in argument with indi-
viduals.

"My question then, sir, is your present plan, which you submitted on
agriculture, does that represent in any way a change in your thinking?"

"None at all."

There was on the books a law, Ike said, which carried rigid price
supports through to December 1954, and that law would be rigidly
enforced. There would be no attempt to tamper with it.

But in the meantime, he said, he was doing what he had promised in
his talks on agriculture — getting together the most broadly based groups
of farmers and farm students and agricultural intellectuals to devise a
program to meet the needs of the country.

Rumors of dissension, nevertheless, increased and multiplied with
every passing week. The President, it was reported, had tentatively
approved a modification of the cut I had made in dairy price support,
but I had balked by threatening to resign. This was absolutely untrue.
On March 26, the President and I had conferred for about 35 minutes
about the dairy situation. I told him the reaction we were getting from
across the country, pinpointed the opposition, and left him a detailed
memo on the subject. He said in effect, "We'll stand firm." There was
not one word about "compromise."

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 191

Yet compromise was much in the air, with the Administration, ac-
cording to rumor, giving in. The press reported Congressman Hope
as believing a compromise measure would be enacted — perhaps an ex-
tension of 90 per cent supports on the basics for a year or two, with the
understanding that at the end of this period growers of each crop would
vote to decide whether to keep supports at that level or shift to one of
several other price support plans.

No doubt it was with compromise in mind that Congressman Cooley
asked me when I testified before the House Committee on Agriculture
whether I would urge a veto if Congress passed a bill extending rigid
high level supports for one, two, or three years. "I don't know," I
answered. "I probably would. I would hope Congress would not do
that."

In April, Senator Young said he thought the President would go
along with a one-year extension of the existing price support program,
but that he might not accept a two-year extension.

Senator Ellender was quoted as saying that the President, in the
Senator's opinion, would not have the "political courage to veto" an
extension of high level supports.

I knew better. I had continually kept in touch with President Eisen-
hower on the progress of our program on Capitol Hill. Rather early
in the battle he had told me in effect: "I will veto any legislation the
Congress sends to me which continues high rigid supports." He said,
"I feel confident that the Congress will not override a veto on this issue."

And finally, he remarked, "Ezra, when the time comes for me to
go on television in support of our program, you can count on me to do
it."

"What Is Right for America . . .**

There is drama in a struggle of this kind that is seldom intimated,
much less understood. It is in the gender of struggles of all kinds; a
military battle between two armies, a legal contest between two lawyers
arguing to a jury, two football teams deciding a championship, the
seventh game of a World Series gone into extra innings. In this instance
the stakes were high indeed. Freedom itself was, to my way of thinking,
the fundamental issue — freedom for farmers to plant, compete, market,
and make their own business decisions.

There was strategy and careful generalship. There was an assessment
of forces, an attempt to discover who was committed for and against,
who was wavering, who was as yet undecided. There was the studied

192 GROSS FIRE

effort to map out and hammer at the opposition's weaknesses, while
being aware of their strengths. In the battle itself, there was the neces-
sity for covering up when hurt, perhaps by backing away or sometimes
by renewing one's own attack; or conversely for pressing home an
advantage. And even in its last moments, anything still could happen.

The Republican leadership came up with some excellent strategy.
Senator Aiken, carrying the ball for us in the Senate, saw immediately
that it would be wise to split our proposals into several packages. The
main package, of course, would be the flexible plan; another, a separate
program for wool; a third an increase which we sought in the borrow-
ing capacity of the CCC.

Our opponents fought tooth and nail against this strategy, their ob-
jective being to lump together as many as possible of the various parts
of agricultural legislation, and tying them to an extension of rigid,
high level supports. Such an omnibus measure, they reasoned, would
get the support of all the various segments of the farm bloc in Congress
and contain too much vital legislation to permit a veto. The President
vetoes or approves a bill in its entirety; he cannot approve nine-tenths
of a bill and veto the remaining one-tenth. He must take all or nothing.
This is unfortunate but true.

Consistent with our strategy, we tackled the wool bill first. It seemed
easiest to pass. So in late April, the Administration brought up the wool
bill in the Senate. Senator Ellender of Louisiana countered by introduc-
ing an amendment: It provided for an extension of the existing price
supports on the basic crops for two years. (This was later changed to an
extension of only one year in order to enhance the amendment's pros-
pects both of passing the Congress and being accepted by the President.)

Senator Thye proposed another amendment to the wool bill, limiting
the cut on dairy supports to 5 points in place of the 15 points involved
in my decision of February 15.

Both sides scoured the Senate for votes. This was the first skirmish.
It was still a preliminary engagement, but it might portend which way
things would run.

Excitement was intense both in the Department and on the Hill as
the wool bill and its amendments came to a vote in the Senate on
April 27.

The Thye amendment to raise the dairy supports to 85 pep cent of
parity was defeated by a vote of 53 to 38.

We had expected to win this one and we did. The Ellender amend-
ment to extend high level price supports for one year, however, was
more uncertain, and more crucial. We defeated it 48 to 40. Thirty-seven

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 193

Republicans and 1 1 Democrats voted against the amendment while 32
Democrats, 7 Republicans, and one Independent supported it.

Both sides counted their gains and their losses. We had lost 7 Re-
publican votes but gained 1 1 Democratic. It was a solid victory. If we
could hold these lines, we stood to win in the Senate. In what was really
an anticlimax, the Senate passed the wool bill 69 to 17.

That night the President was giving a Congressional reception at
the White House, and I had the pleasure of telling him the good news.
He was delighted. Throughout the evening most of the discussion was
about the Senate's action.

Demonstrating the wisdom of Senator Aiken's strategy was the fact
that the Senators from the Mountain States had ignored party lines
and voted solidly against extension of rigid, high level supports. They
wanted the wool bill and they wanted it free of entangling amendments.
Having got them on our side once, the problem now was to keep them
there.

Our opponents, though shaken, seemed convinced that this vote was
far from conclusive on the ultimate fate of 90 per cent supports even
in the Senate. They continued their propaganda barrage.

In the House, where the issue would be coming up next, Representa-
tive Cooley confidently predicted on May 8, "We will adjourn Con-
gress with essentially the same program as we have now — an extension
of a 90 per cent support price on basic crops for two or three years.

"When the plan comes up for a vote in the House Agriculture Com-
mittee," he boasted, "it will be lucky to get five votes from the 30
members." This was two more than Congressman Poage had envisioned
earlier.

We raised our own campaign to a new pitch of intensity. The staff
kept in the closest touch practicable with key figures. I made phone
calls by the dozens, pointing out the vast importance of this issue, to
our friends in and outside of Congress, to those in the farm organiza-
tions and citizens groups, and to others interested in the farm problems.
The He-Coons came in and those who knew Congressmen made some
calls on the Hill.

I reviewed the situation at a meeting of the Cabinet and was pleased
to have the President again indicate his wholehearted support of our
program. When the question of a possible veto came up, the President
told the entire Cabinet what he had assured me earlier: If the
Congress passed an extension of the rigid high level supports he would
not only seek my advice before taking action, he would in all probability
veto the bill.

194 GROSS FIRE

"Mr. President," I said, "I've been pressed both at hearings and in
news conferences as to whether I would recommend a veto and I've
gone so far as to say I probably would. 55

"As far as I'm concerned,' 5 the President replied, "you can go all the
way on that if you think it wise to do so,"

The first telltale indication that our campaign was making noticeable
inroads in the House came during the latter part of May.

The Congressional Quarterly published the results of a poll of con-
stituents in 1 6 states. The question was "Do you favor changing farm
price supports from 90 per cent of parity to a flexible system?" In 15 of
the 16 states, the majority answered yes. The exception was North
Dakota, Senator Young's state.

On the morning of May 26 I had breakfast at the White House
with the President, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Ross Rizley, Cliff
Hope, and three other senior Republican members from the House
Committee on Agriculture. Hope and his colleagues made almost a
desperate attempt to get the President and me to agree to an extension
of high rigid supports for one year. They pulled out all the stops: the
good of the party, the economic situation, farmers' continuing need of
high price assurance for one more year.

They had obviously got themselves into a box by their consistent
failure to back our program. No doubt they had thought originally that
the farm bloc would be strong enough to prevail, possibly even to over-
ride a veto. But as the battle wore on with our strength apparently in-
creasing and theirs declining, the outcome had now become uncertain
enough that they were not only willing but anxious to compromise. They
could neither afford to lose nor to turn about and report out a bill
embodying our proposals. Either course threatened them with political
disaster.

The President and I both made it very clear that we were not in-
terested in compromising principle. We could give the committee our
sympathy, but not our support.

At this breakfast I showed for the first time new national and state
maps revealing the proportion of farm cash receipts brought in by the
commodities being supported at 90 per cent of parity. Nationally, these
commodities provided only 23 per cent of total farm cash receipts. In
half the states the proportion ranged from o to 15 per cent. In only
five states was it over 40 per cent. To those "government in agriculture"
Congressmen who spoke as though all farm income hung on price
supports, this information was disappointing. These maps seemed to make
a profound impression upon all those present — so much so that the four
members of the Agricultural Committee were reluctant to discuss them.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER I95

On the morning of June 7, I went to the White House at 8:30 to
attend a conference of legislative leaders, called by the President. These
are the members of Congress who have the demanding task of leading
or driving legislation through the House and Senate. After an hour's
discussion, it was agreed that there would be no compromise on the
principle of flexible supports. It was also definitely decided that the
President and I would both go on TV, taking our farm program
directly to the people.

But the next day, June 8, the House Agriculture Committee voted
2i~8 to recommend to the full House membership that existing sup-
ports be continued through 1955. It defeated by the narrowest of
margins, 15-14, a recommendation that 90 per cent supports be per-
manent. Though the vote of 21-8 was a little better for us than Poage
and Cooley had predicted, it was still a hard slap at the Administration.
In view of this impressive vote, Congressman Hope on June 9 pre-
dicted the House would pass a one-year extension. The press, even some
portions of it that were in our corner in this fight, said sadly that our
proposals were "doomed," "little hope remains," etc.

For my part, I told newsmen I was "disappointed but not surprised"
by the Committee action.

Now we were glad indeed that the President had okayed a television
report. Hard on the heels of the House Committee rebuff, in fact only
two days later, he carried to the nation his TV appeal. This program
he said in a sincere and moving speech, "is for all farmers, regardless of
their politics, and for all America.

"Many have told me," the President went on, "that it would not be
good politics to attempt solution of the farm problem during an election
year. The sensible thing to do, I have been told over and over, was to
close my eyes to the damage the present farm program does to our
farmers and the rest of our people — and do the job of correction next
year.

"In this matter I am completely unmoved by arguments as to what
constitutes good or winning politics . . .

"Though I have not been in this political business very long, I know
that what is right for America is politically right."

Just four days later the House Agriculture Committee voted to raise
dairy supports from the 75 per cent level at which I had set them to
80 per cent of parity for the period September 1, 1954, to March 31,

1955-
Now the break was complete. The war was being fought in plain

view, and the public could see each side and watch the firing. I hoped

that the smoke wouldn't obscure their visibility.

16

The Washington Whirlpool

One thing you can be sure about in Washington is that the whirlpool
of life goes on catching and swinging you in its swift currents no matter
how engrossed you may be in your job.

Late in the afternoon of March i, a memorable Monday, I had
received the shocking news at the Department that four Puerto Ricans
had gone into the galleries of the House of Representatives, drawn
revolvers, and fired down upon the members. Five Congressmen were
wounded: Alvin M. Bentley of Michigan, critically; Ben F. Jensen of
Iowa; Clifford Davis of Tennessee; Kenneth A. Roberts of Alabama;
and George H. Fallon of Maryland.

Immediately a couple of security guards were placed in the Depart-
ment of Agriculture. We had planned to leave next day on a trip to the
Virgin Islands, with a stopover in Puerto Rico. At the insistence of
Secret Service officials, we decided to postpone it. All night an officer
was on duty at my home and for some months thereafter plain-clothes-
men accompanied me whenever I went to places where there were
large Puerto Rican populations. When Flora and I went to New York,
for example, to make some radio and TV appearances, we were met at
La Guardia Airport by a member of the police force who stayed with us
all day.

We received all kinds of advice about the need and the way to
"glamorize" our program. Public relations planning had started in
the fall of 1953. Ted Braun of San Francisco, who operated a P.R. firm
on the West Coast, came to the Department and together with our
staff and some of the White House people like Jerry Persons, carefully
discussed the public relations of the farm problem.

. ' ■ ■ %

[1] In November, 1952, the author met a man of whom he had heard much. Though
strangers, D wight David Eisenhower ottered Ezra Taft Benson a job-as a member of the
Cabinet. "You can't refuse to serve," he said. u.p.i.

[2] When a family man goes

to Washington, he's only

half-alive until his family

joins him. Here, in one of

the last photographs taken

at their home in Salt Lake

City, Utah, the Bensons

choose up sides for a ball

game. (The boys, Mark and

Reed, were away.) Left to

right:

Beverly,

Beth,

Secretary Benson,

Mrs. Benson,

Barbara,

Bonnie

FARM JOURNAL PHQTO
BY BLACK STAR

The life of a Cabinet officer is divided between participation in a high council of govern-
ment and specific governmental work in the field. In Agriculture, the author found a job
of education to be done in both fields: to win the farmers, to win over his fellow Secretaries.
[3] The Eisenhower Cabinet in session, May 10, 1957. Left to right: Wilton Persons, Deputy
Assistant to the President; Henry Cabot Lodge, Ambassador to the U.N.; Fred Seaton,
Secretary of the Interior; George Humphrey, Secretary of the Treasury; Vice President
Richard Nixon; Attorney General Herbert Brownell; Sinclair Weeks, Secretary of Com-
merce; Marion Folsom, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare; Val Peterson, Civil
Defense Administrator; Budget Director Percival Brundage; Defense Mobilizer Gordon
Gray; James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor; Postmaster General Arthur Summerfield; John
Foster Dulles, Secretary of State; President Eisenhower; Charles E. Wilson, Secretary of
Defense; the author; Maxwell W. Rabb, Secretary of the Cabinet; Sherman Adams, Presi-
dential Assistant. [4] Talking with Nebraska farmers.

- '

- ••■ .- ?

' • : ' 1
■■•'.' sc ': H

ifej

-' ■'' :V '. ; :

1

[5] Speaking from
the courthouse steps,
Springfield, Colorado,
April 1955.

"We had word that there was
going to be some attempt to
break up our meetings,"
the author says.

But there was no attempt here.
Carrying the word of what the
government was trying to do
meant stopping in little
communities, wherever people
could gather.

£%&«*

ifc^#iiil

Whenever the pressures of official Washington or national

politics became too intense,

writes the author, he liked to [6 & ?] Here, riding a good saddle

pp/ hark to ihp pnrfh avairi horse ' with the ranch manager and

ga vulk w me man again. } Willard Marriott at Marriott , s

Fairfield Farm, Hume, Virginia. Op-
posite, with the spring ewes.

PHOTOS BY OLLIE ATKINS,
REPRINTED BY SPECIAL PERMISSION
OF THE SATURDAY EVENING POST,
© 1955, CURTIS PUBLISHING CO.

A Cabinet Secretary
in Action

[8] The Department: Agriculture,
the Problem: an ever-mounting
surplus of corn, wheat, and other
crops; higher costs and taxes;
intense political pressures.

WIDE WORLD PHOTO

[9] Discussion with a group
of Midwestern Congressmen.
Subject: hog prices-and votes.

U;p.i.

[10] With Senator Paul Douglas
(Illinois), Representative Jesse
Wolcott (Michigan), Senator Frank
Carlson (Kansas), Representative
Wright Patman (Texas). u. p. i.

[11] With the President:
A Drought Report, 1953-54.
Action: designating disaster areas,
with $8,000,000 in emergency relief.

U.P.I.

[12] With Representatives
Charles B. Hoeven (Iowa),
Leslie C. Arends (Illinois),
^j Sid Simpson (Illinois).
1 Subject: Votes u.p.l

[13 & 14] With opponents:

Allen J. Ellender of Louisiana . . .

U.P.I.

and Senator Estes Kefauver of
Tennessee
(that's Mrs. Benson in the middle).

WIDE WORLD PHOTO

[15] Congratulating corn farmers for

their "wise decision" in voting to
eliminate government controls (1958)

U.P.I.

[16] "He's getting used to barbs,"

was the caption the newspapers ran, as the

1956 political campaign drew closer.

WIDE WORLD PHOTO

Then, [17] as he arrives in Olney, Illinois,

the area gets its first rain in 18 weeks.

The press has the author pose as rain-maker.

But in 1955,

there was still drought in some areas . . .

and more barbed wire to come.

10

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER IQJ

The experts had about as hard a job as P.R. men ever took on. We
were recommending getting rid of high rigid price supports to lessen
the incentive for excess production and to permit markets to grow.
Though the idea was economically sound and the P.R. boys knew
the techniques of selling an idea, the effort began with a tough initial
handicap. Some farmers growing the crops in question were far from
enthusiastic about seeing price supports reduced. The old refrain of
"Why me?" sounded, though I must say they were more realistic about
it than their elected public officials.

The public relations men developed an ingenious system. Laying down
the criteria for a program which they thought would make farm people
happy, they then developed the techniques for selling it to the farm-
ing community. They went to our program experts in the Department
and said, "Give us a program that meets these criteria."

The program experts turned thumbs down. This was old stuff to
them; old stuff in a new costume. There are really no "new ideas" in
the area of agricultural policy. This is a well-plowed field which the
best intelligence of hundreds of specialists has worked over for forty
years. Ideas which are readily politically "saleable" won't work; ideas
based on hard economic fact won't sell. After the public relations boys
got the vehicle designed, the analysts couldn't produce the freight; nor
could P.R. design a vehicle to move the freight that sober judgment
produced.

But at least a hundred times during this period, we heard: "Your
program would be saleable if we could only develop the right way of
selling it." Actually, I wasn't too upset. After all, a clergyman knows
something about salesmanship, too, and he understands, or ought to,
that the Madison Avenue approach isn't everything. Braun did help by
urging sympathy instead of sermonizing, warm phrases instead of cold
statistics, positive statements instead of criticism, and pronouns instead
of adjectives.

To me, our program didn't need to be sold by slick phrases or clever
advertising, but by sincerity, enthusiasm, and hard work. This meant
continuing to go out often to see people where they were, not waiting
for them to come to us for information.

In March I had gone to Denver to speak at the annual convention
of the National Farmers Union. When the invitation came and I de-
cided to accept, there were quite a few raised eyebrows among my as-
sociates. Even the President asked: "Are you really going to meet with
that bunch of rebels?" But he smiled when he said it.

I98 CROSS FIRE

"Of course," I said, "I've never refused yet to meet with any bona
fide farm group. But I'm not going to pull any punches either."

It turned out surprisingly well* There was a standing ovation as I
entered the hall, which I interpreted as nothing more than a courtesy.
But it was a good beginning, nevertheless. The NFU prided itself
on being for the family farm, I pointed out that nearly all of the sup-
port money was going to the bigger, more prosperous farmers. Farmers
deserved a better program than that* In California in 1953, the largest
price support loan on cotton was nearly $1,250,000. But the average
cotton loan in California was $1731. In Kansas the largest wheat loan
was $139,237 — the average, $1525. In Nebraska the largest corn loan
was $67,000 — the average $2487.

To get such averages, I pointed out, there had to be a vast number
of very small loans to offset the astronomical sums going to the big
operators. Was this program really helping the family farm?

They not only listened intently; they applauded several times and at
the close gave me another rousing, standing ovation. Somehow I couldn't
believe after that that the rank and file of the NFU was so completely
opposed to our program as their leadership pretended.

Of course, I didn't spurn even public relations gimmicks if they hap-
pened to fit naturally into what we were doing.

In June 1954, Milton Eisenhower as president of Pennsylvania State
University asked me to speak at the annual meeting of the Dairy Science
Association in Schwab Auditorium. It was a hot, humid day. Before
the speech was half over, I stopped and said, "Would you mind if aU of
us up here on the stage took off our coats? We're really getting hot
under the collar," They all began to clap, and with that everybody on
the stage shed his coat.

Having noticed that there were no vending machines offering milk
anywhere on the campus, I had a little fun with the idea of a Dairy
Science meeting having to be urged to make milk available. In his re-
marks foUowing, Milton Eisenhower promised that milk vending ma-
chines would be very much in evidence the next time I visited the
campus,

(This milk situation was really outlandish. I came into the USDA to
find plenty of automatic soft drink dispensers, but not one milk dis-
penser, We had some put in very shortly. I later went to banquets
given by various dairy associations, where I tried in vain to get a glass
of milk. Traveling by air from Minneapolis to Chicago, across the
nation's most productive dairy land, there was whiskey and in some

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER I99

planes champagne but again, no milk. I wrote to the heads of the air-
lines and they promised to add milk to their beverage list.)

Later in the day, we were shown around the dairy barns. A champion
Holstein cow was brought out into the yard for inspection. The press
and TV camera people challenged me to milk the cow. So I took my
position, grinned at them, and told them to stand back or I'd squirt
milk on them. They backed about 10 feet away. I overheard one re-
porter say, "He'll never reach us here," Oh, yeah, I thought. And
when I got going pretty well, I suddenly shot a spray of milk and got
him good, and some of the cameras, too.

The incident was publicized, with pictures, in Life magazine.

There was a kind of semi-public relations going on with the Cabinet.
By coming to know each other better, we could work together for not
only farm legislation but the entire Administration program.

This teamwork was advanced significantly by the Cabinet wives. They
gave occasional luncheons for one another and the beneficial effects
were readily seen. The first such party given by Flora took place in
May. It was attended by Mrs. Eisenhower, Mrs. Nixon, Mrs. Adams,
the Cabinet wives, and Mrs. Hobby.

Flora was determined to handle this affair at our home in precisely
the same manner as any other luncheon. It was not going to be
catered, and she was not going to call on outside help. Flora did it all,
with the help of our daughters. Of course she planned the event for
weeks, working out every detail to perfection.

One day, when I remarked on how painstakingly she was going about
it, she paused and said: "This isn't just a luncheon to me. It's some-
thing more than that. I want to show that it's possible to uphold the
standards of the Church and have a wonderful time, too."

On the day of the luncheon, as the distinguished guests arrived, Flora
greeted them warmly, "You'll find things a bit different in our home,"
she said. "We don't serve cocktails, or play cards, there is no smoking
and no tea or coffee — but we'll try to make it up to you in our own
way, and we hope you enjoy our home."

All the guests seemed deeply impressed by Flora's managerial ability,
the cooperative spirit of the children, and the atmosphere of our home.
The children put on a program of music, poetry, and ballet. Beverly,
Bonnie, and Beth helped serve the meal, and did some of the enter-
taining; dancing, playing the piano, and singing. Entertainment was
also provided by the Madrigal Singers from Brigham Young University
(who were in Washington to present a concert), with Barbara as one

200 CROSS FIRE

of the soloists. Reed, home from Texas, delivered Wordsworth's "The
Happy Warrior," dedicating it to President Eisenhower. Mark and Lela
sent a telegram from Palo Alto, California.

I left the office about 3:00 o'clock and reached home in time to
greet the ladies before their departure. It was good to find them high in
their praise of the entire event. Mrs. Eisenhower asked the Madrigal
Singers, some 28 of them, if they had seen her home and when they
indicated they hadn't she arranged for a special tour and then stood
and waved goodbye from the White House steps as their bus pulled
out. Then they returned to our home in their chartered bus for a
buffet supper.

As I retired that night I was more than proud of my wife and children.
The girls had all adjusted beautifully to Washington life. They were
growing up fast. Their obedience and loyalty to Flora and me were
all we could ask. With the passing of each day, I had added reason to be
grateful to my wife for the effective and exemplary way she was train-
ing them.

Within the next few days Flora received many sincere tributes from
her guests.
From Mrs. Eisenhower:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Washington, D.G.

^ m r> May l7 > I954

Dear Mrs. Benson:

This is just a little note to tell you again how much I enjoyed your
beautiful luncheon last Friday. The food which you and your daughters
prepared was delicious, it was all so good that my dinner was very un-
attractive to me that evening.

I loved seeing your little house. The atmosphere of peace and love
abiding within made all of us come away with a deep feeling of joy . . .

Mamie Doud Eisenhower

From Mrs. George Humphrey:

Washington, D.G.

Ayr , „ May 14, 1954

My dear Flora,

I cannot sleep tonight until I tell you how perfect your lovely luncheon
was in every detail.

Your girls and that dedicated, talented son, Reed, were an inspiration.
The young people I will never forget.

Your family have achieved a unity of fun and worthwhileness that one
can only reverence and feel privileged to have seen and been a part of.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 201

Life today is so unstable that families count for more and more in our
lives, and you and Ezra surrounded by your lovely family and so respected
and loved by all who meet you, is a privilege to us to know and be a part of.

I loved the singing, but best of all, I loved the eagerness of the young
faces singing their hearts out and enriching their lives and ours by their
dedication.

Thank you for a day I shall never forget.

Mrs. Pamela Humphrey

A General's Advice

Party leaders were worried. Another early morning conference was
called at the White House. Before the White House staff and various
legislative and political leaders, I stressed again the importance of stand-
ing firmly. There was nothing to be gained by compromising principle.
The President had committed himself to this issue. Now we had to
support him.

I thought the conference was fairly successful. Yet I could not feel
entirely pleased because of a continuing reluctance to accept flexible
supports for the basic commodities.

On Friday, June 25, the House Agriculture Committee reported out
their omnibus bill. Following their basic strategy, they had lumped to-
gether in one package many of the somewhat unrelated features we
wanted and had tied it all up with a bright red 90 per cent of parity
ribbon.

At the last moment they had deleted two most remarkable provisions
which would have called for a preferential vote by corn and cotton
growers to determine the level of supports they wanted for the next two
years.

Surely this would have been a new thing in government; to permit
a group of producers to decide by vote how much of a subsidy they
wanted from the Federal Government, It was viciously dangerous.
There was still in the bill a similar provision on wheat.

At staff meeting I outlined how things stood and what we had to do:

"We are going to do all we can on the floor of the House to defeat
particularly Section One of the bill which would extend rigid 90 per
cent supports."

On Saturday, June 26, I held an early morning strategy conference
at the Department, making plans for the fight which was due to burst
on the House floor during the coming weeks. Later that morning I went
to see Joe Martin, the fine, gentlemanly Congressman from Mas-
sachusetts who was then Speaker of the House. Joe told me, "HI

202 CROSS FIRE

very likely speak in support of your program." Since this was a thing
he did not often do, it illustrated the importance we all felt was at-
tached to the coming crucial battle.

At one o'clock that day the President was giving a luncheon at the
White House honoring the two most distinguished Englishmen of the
era: Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill and Foreign Secretary Sir
Anthony Eden, I was looking forward to the occasion as an oasis in the
farm legislation problem. I didn't know that this luncheon was to be,
in a sense, a turning point in that struggle.

The day was Washington at its beastliest — with the temperature
reaching ioo degrees before a late afternoon thunderstorm provided
relief. The stifling weather, the long days spent in planning, encouraging
those whose spirits needed bolstering, telephoning, dictating letters,
interviewing and being interviewed, and all the while supervising the
regular business of the Department, had left me weary for lack of
rest, hungry for succor, anxious for some sign or portent of the future.

And I was not disappointed, for a more impressive, inspirational oc-
casion of this kind I cannot remember. As always, the State Dining
Room was beautifully decorated, and the guests included all the legis-
lative leaders of both political parties, the Chief Justice of the United
States, most of the Cabinet, and a few top members of the President's
staff.

The President, after paying an impressive tribute to his old friend,
Sir Winston, invited him to say whatever was in his heart. This grand
old man, eighty years old, the bulldog of Britain, who had in their
moment of deadliest peril called from his people such efforts as com-
prised their finest hour, spoke to us for some 30 minutes in a most
profound, illuminating, and instructive way. There was little doubt in
my mind as I listened that here was one of the greatest living statesmen
in the world,

Vividly I remember that he stressed the need of patience as well as
vigilance in dealing with communism (and I thought how well that
applied also to our dealing with the farm problem).

As though this was not enough, there was an extra dividend for me
at the luncheon. Almost providentially, it seems, I was seated next to
Congressman Charles A. Halleck of Indiana. Charlie Halleck was at
that time the Republican Floor Leader of the House. A veteran Con-
gressman of about twenty years service, a strong-faced, square-jawed,
extremely effective fighter, a Phi Beta Kappa and one of those former
prosecuting attorneys, Halleck had the confidence of Midwest farmers.
He was also thoroughly loyal to the Administration.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 203

I had wanted very much to talk with him earlier, to enlist an all-out
effort on his part during the coming week, but he had gone home to
Indiana and had not been expected back over the weekend.

Sitting beside him, I now had an excellent opportunity to pour the
whole story into his ears, to get his opinions, and, above all, to impress
upon him how important his leadership would be in next week's cam-
paign.

Then, and in the two or three days following, we reached a complete
understanding. "We may have to make some compromises on the level
of supports in order to salvage the principle of flexibility," Charlie
warned.

"If you have to do that, then do it/' I replied. "The principle
is all-important. Get as much of our program as you can. You decide
how much that is. But remember that the size of the surplus in the
years ahead will depend on the range of supports the Congress gives
us in this legislation."

In saying this I was applying tactics taught me by Dwight Eisen-
hower himself.

It had always been my characteristic to determine an objective and
then drive directly at it, with no detours. But one day the President
talked about this characteristic of mine and the difficulties it engendered
when applied to political realities.

The President took a pad of paper and with a black pencil marked
a bold X at the top of the page. At the bottom, he drew a rough square.
"Ezra," said he, "in the military you always have a major objective.
This X is the objective. Here are our forces," pointing to the square.
"Now, it might seem that the simplest thing to do is to go straight
toward the objective. But that is not always the best way to get there.
You may have to move to one side or the other. You may have to
move around some obstacle. You may have to feint, to pull the de-
fending forces out of position. You may encounter heavy enemy forces,
and temporarily have to retreat. There may be some zigs and zags in
your course as you move toward the objective." I nodded. "That may
have to be the way you work at this farm problem."

I was thinking of General Ike's lesson in tactics when I agreed to
compromise, if necessary, on the level of support in order to get the
principle of flexibility established.

The night of June 26, following the talk with Halleck, I told Flora:
"I feel this day has been very much worthwhile in advancing our
cause. One thing sure, if the good Lord wants us to win this fight, we
will. If He doesn't, we'll take the decision in good spirit."

204 CROSS FIRE

On Monday, June 28, Vice President Nixon and I met at the
Capitol and made a recording which was broadcast over the ABC
radio network that night asking national support of our farm program
proposals. Members of the House Agriculture Committee loudly de-
manded equal time for reply. ABC allotted time to the Committee
leaders, Republican Cliff Hope and Democrat Harold Cooley.

The battle had now almost reached its climax in the House. Both
sides tirelessly scoured the chamber for votes. On June 30, I breakfasted
with members of Congress from the wool states telling them how urgent
it was that they support the program. Then a conference with the
President on the same subject—then a meeting with the White House
staff and Charlie Halleck and Joe Martin. We were finding it difficult
to get members of our own party whom we had counted on, to con-
tinue to stand firm.

Talking it all over with my wife late that night I complained, "This
is a new kind of fight for me. To us 'yes' is yes, and W is no, and it's
a commitment. But there's so much political horse-trading going on in
the House right now that Halleck and Martin can't be sure where some
of the votes will wind up — some that we felt sure about."

Most of the House Agriculture Committee was fighting us. Charlie
Halleck didn't even have secretarial or technical help from the Com-
mittee. He had called me about that and I sent some people over to
give him a hand.

It had become a bitter, intense, emotional grudge fight. Though I
hated that aspect of it, we had to hang on to the end. The crisis in
the House came on July 1 and 2. The House Committee had reported
their omnibus bill containing some attractive features along with an
extension of 90 per cent price supports and a provision setting a
support level of 80 per cent of parity for dairy products. We had
to defeat the 90 per cent provision. We wanted also to defeat the dairy
proviso.

The atmosphere on the floor and in the galleries of the House was
electric. No one knew for sure who had what votes.

Representative Charles W. Vursell, an Illinois Republican, moved to
amend the Committee bill by removing peanuts from the list of specified
basic crops. Republican and Democratic opponents alike lambasted
this amendment as a divide and conquer attempt to split the farm bloc
and widen support for the President's program. The amendment was
beaten 159 to 121, If this was a straw in the wind, the wind apparendy
was against us.

Then a 16-man Democratic delegation from New York was an-

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 205

nounced as lining up with the farm bloc to extend 90 per cent sup-
ports for one year. That hurt. We needed city support to win.

We took still another sharp blow when the House by voice vote
shouted down an amendment calling for flexible price supports ranging
from 75 to 90 per cent of parity.

Three successive exchanges, and we had had the worst of it each
time.

At this point, in the opinion of various members and observers, defeat
seemed certain. That was when the generalship of Charlie Halleck
came into play.

Halleck had decided that he had just one chance — that he might
possibly be able to put over a compromise by splitting the difference
right down the middle, and offering, instead of 75 to 90 per cent, an
amendment establishing flexible supports for 1955 at 82 J4 to 90 per
cent for all of the basic crops except tobacco, which would continue
at 90 per cent. Maybe in this way he could swing some tobacco
votes and pick up some other wavering votes.

Halleck brought up this amendment. At the last moment, before ballot-
ing began on it, Speaker Joe Martin took the floor. In his raspy,
New England, matter-of-fact voice, he warned the House: "You and
I know there is not going to be any legislation unless it is acceptable to
the President."

Here was the clear threat of a veto — a veto that would bring the
Act of 1949 into effect, with supports at 75 to 90 per cent. If you
don't want 75 to 90, Martin was saying, accept this compromise and
save face for everybody. It was timely; it was impressive; it was an ap-
peal to common sense.

The vote began. The galleries were silent. On the floor Representa-
tives watched and figured the developing totals. It became painful even
to breathe. And then suddenly we knew the answer. We had the votes.
The amendment carried 179 to 165.

Under Halleck's shrewd floor management only 17 Republicans
voted against the amendment. And Halleck had managed to pick up
16 Democrats from the cities by reminding them that a vote for the
continuation of 90 per cent supports could be construed as a vote
against the interests of city consumers.

Thus ended a long day — July 1, 1954. Thus began a night of
consternation in the so-called farm bloc.

Though they made considerable to-do over the fact that 92 House
members had failed to vote and though they talked bravely about
reversing this decision next day on a series of roll call votes, we knew

206 CROSS FIRE

that this defeat had rocked them — and they knew we knew it. They
were glum because of failure to stop the amendment. And we — well,
we had two events to celebrate.

It was Flora's birthday. The whole family went out to dinner, and
while we paid homage to the "heart" of our family, a waitress brought
in a birthday cake at the appropriate moment. Then we went home,
watched Flora open gifts, and relaxed all evening.

Next day the battle was resumed and now it really was a grudge
fight. Minority leader Sam Rayburn of Texas, lecturing his colleagues,
snapped, "You can't kill the fanner just a little by bringing in 82 x /% per
cent. There is no difference between murder and manslaughter.' 5 Con-
gressman Thomas G. Abernethy of Mississippi charged that the Presi-
dent's proposals were "a program for flexing and fleecing the American
farmers." Representative Emanuel Celler, of New York, brought the
Vice President into the act in a most intemperate speech, calling
Nixon an "inept, naive, Piltdown statesman ... a broken-down, malad-
justed, purblind Throttlebottom ... a hoax . . ,"

Charlie Halleck, on the other hand, traded on the great prestige of
the President: "I believe with President Eisenhower, whether it's bad
politics in an election year or not, I think this is the right thing for the
country and the right thing for the farmers."

The debate ended. The House voted again. And again the suspense
built up until the trend came through strong and clear. This was it.
Flexible supports ranging from 82]^ to 90 per cent on the basic crops
for 1955 and from 75 to go per cent thereafter were approved 228 to
170 — a far larger majority than that of the day before. Supporting
the flexible provision were 182 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and one
Independent. Opposed were 147 Democrats and 23 Republicans. On
this roll call vote we picked up 29 additional Democratic votes and
lost only 6 additional Republican votes. About the only consolation left
to the opposition was that the proviso for raising price supports on
dairy products to 80 per cent of parity for the period beginning Septem-
ber 1, 1954, and ending March 31, 1955, was left in the bill.

We had won a great battle on principle. The dopesters had been
proved wrong.

I telephoned the President and gave him the good news. He was de-
lighted. As someone said, the Administration had bearded the so-called
farm bloc lions in their den and had come out carrying their whiskers.

On Friday, July 9, after Cabinet and a few conferences, Flora, Beth
and I left for a weekend at Ocean City, Maryland. Most of the next

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 20J

day we spent on the beach, having a fine time. Then, around 5 o'clock,
I suffered a sun stroke followed by severe chills, and it became evident
that I had been badly burned.

Sunday the burns were so painful that all day was spent in the motel
applying creams and trying to ease a distress worse than anything I had
ever experienced. Toward evening, I managed to drag myself out for a
short stroll on the boardwalk and to a hotel for dinner. It wasn't much
fun.

On Monday we left for home, the burns if anything worse than be-
fore.

Next day I went in the President's plane, the Columbine, to State
College, Pennsylvania, to attend the funeral of Mrs. Milton Eisenhower.
Services were held in the Episcopal Church at 12 noon. Seeing
Milton's grief, I wished so much I could do something to comfort him.
We went to the graveside and then back to Milton's home for a brief
visit.

By 4: 30 when we touched down in Washington, I was in such misery
that I went home immediately, but foolishly came downtown later to
have dinner with a group of Senators. It was all I could do to wait
for the discussions to finish, the pain was so bad. When I got home,
Flora helped me out of my clothes and called the doctor. He directed me
to go immediately by ambulance to the Naval Medical Center in
Bethesda. At the hospital the doctors ordered cold compresses, back and
front from head to toe. Though they gave me sleeping pills, I didn't
get any rest until 3 a.m.

The doctors kept me in the hospital four days. By that time the worst
of it had cleared up, though the skin was still very tender. By then I
was more than glad to get back into battle.

No doubt about it, the opposition was on the run. We had won an
important skirmish in the Senate in April on the wool bill; now in
July we had followed up with a truly smashing victory in the House.

Still, it was far from over. The issue would be joined again in the
Senate when the remainder of our farm proposals came up there. Our
opponents were resourceful. They could still win in the Senate and
then in conference between the Senate and House Committees report
back a measure calling for extension of 90 per cent supports with good
prospects that both chambers would accept the conference report.

Many expected this. Even one of our ardent supporters, a man who
had served for a time as my news aide, John C. Davis, wrote in his
column, "It seems certain that the Congress will raise dairy supports

208 CROSS FIRE

from the 75 per cent of parity level set by Secretary Benson for the
current marketing year." Moreover, he said the Senate probably would
insist on an extension of 90 per cent supports on the basic crops.

Far from resting on our laurels, therefore, we had work to do. Soon
after the House vote, I met with Senators George Aiken, Everett Dirk-
sen, Homer Ferguson, Frank Barrett, and others in an early morning
conference* These were the leaders who would carry our cause in the
Senate.

They reported that our opponents, smarting from the House defeat,
were mobilizing all their forces to reverse the verdict. We laid out
plans for a series of evening meetings with key Senators.

When feeling runs as high as it did at this time, there is a tendency
to make elephants out of insects. Senator Aiken took it upon himself to
have distributed to every Senator's desk a copy of my statement showing
that the "basics" brought in only 23 per cent of farm cash receipts.
This rather inoffensive gesture infuriated the opposition. Heatedly, Milt
Young charged that the statement was "completely erroneous"; Hubert
Humphrey declared it was in line with my "doubledealing, hypocritical
policy" of playing off one section of the nation's farmers against an-
other; Bob Kerr made the (for him) pedestrian comment that the
charts were "dishonest," and might "grossly mislead" some Senators:
and Ed Thye saw it as another evidence of the way "farmers are being
taken over the coals," These outbursts were nothing but political hokum.
The maps were accurate. No one ever successfully refuted these facts.

Yet these tirades were most encouraging, a sign of the jitters.

They were still making it tough in every way possible. Late in July
the Congressional delegation from Oklahoma, excluding Congressman
Page Belcher, came to my office demanding that all of Oklahoma be
declared a disaster area and that we start immediately on a cattle-buying
program. As spokesman for the group, Senator Kerr painted a picture
which, if taken literally, would have meant that practically every per-
son in Oklahoma was on the verge of starvation.

Not since I came to Washington had I heard more unreasonable
demands made by a man in high office. We listened to the presentation
and closed the conference at the earliest possible time. This was fruitless.
It strengthened my conviction about the danger of subsidies, particularly
to a great industry such as the cattle industry which has undoubtedly
and overwhelmingly favored maintaining its independence and refused
to take government handouts.

At the conclusion of the conference I was more determined than
ever to direct our programs away from subsidies and give-aways. If

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 20Q

there is an emergency and a need for relief, then the program should be
administered as a relief program and called by that name. I felt sure
that the subsidy programs to agriculture in the past had had a demoral-
izing effect upon one of the strongest segments of our economy. We were
going to do all we could to slow down and reverse the trend in that
direction.

Just at this time some senators were filibustering on the Atomic
Energy Bill. This, and a resolution of censure against Senator Joe
McCarthy proposed by Senator Ralph E. Flanders of Vermont, were
postponing consideration of the farm bill. We sat and watched and
bit our nails. Our Senate strength had reached its peak about July 21 ;
here it was July 29 without a sign that our bill would soon be con-
sidered and no telling how long we could hold our forces together.
Though the President grimly said he was determined to see this
matter to a vote if it took all summer, we couldn't help feeling a little
discouraged.

On Friday July 30 Bill Marriott called. "You need a weekend at
Front Royal," he said. That afternoon Flora, Beth, and I drove to the
Marriott ranch. An hour on Trigger was just the relaxer I needed be-
fore dinner. Not until I sank into bed at about 10 o'clock did I realize
how tired I was.

Next day the temperature reached 103 , A plunge into the swimming
pool at Front Royal helped cool us off. Somewhat invigorated we
drove back to Washington in late afternoon.

Wednesday, August 4, was my birthday. There was a surprise party
at the office, and a lovely dinner at home, with our grandson, Steven
Reed, seated at table for the first time. During the dinner Reed made
a recording of all the remarks, unknown to me, and then played it back.

Another birthday gift was the beginning of debate on the farm bill
in the Senate.

All the rest of the week, debate went on. Senator Aiken introduced
a compromise amendment to set price support limits between 80 and
90 per cent of parity. With some Senators wavering, Senator Andrew
F. Schoeppel of Kansas put in a further compromise proposal similar
to the House version, providing for a first year range of 82 J4 to 90
per cent of parity.

On Monday, August 9, came the hour of decision. Once more it was
a day of tense, high feeling. We began the morning by conferring with
representatives of the President's staff in Senator Aiken's office at 7 a.m.
Then I returned to my office where I remained until 7 : 30 that evening.
All day long I fasted, as did members of my family, seeking the Lord's

2io CROSS FIRE

blessing in what we believed to be the very important action being
taken by the 96 Senators,

We spent much time on the telephone with Senators and the White
House staff, doing everything we could think of to help see to it that
all Senators friendly to our side were present and available for voting.
Nor did we neglect the doubtful or uncommitted. "Vote your con-
victions," I urged. "Vote for what you really believe is right for farmers
— that's the best politics."

Reed sat out the entire day in the Senate gallery, sending me
hourly reports.

At about 7:30 that night the word came. The Senate had passed
flexible price support legislation, the same as that approved by the
House in July.

The vote was 49 to 44.

Later in the evening, the proposal to raise the price support on dairy
products from 75 to 80 per cent of parity was beaten 49 to 43.

It had been a very successful day.

Though there was still a mopping-up operation, we were clearly over
the hump. Several major differences between the House and Senate
versions of the farm program remained to be ironed out. The most
important of these were: reconciling the level of support on dairy
products; determining whether or not a two-price plan should be
adopted for wheat; deciding between a two- or a four-year limit for
the duration of the wheat program. We began working immediately
with the conferees; eight from the Senate and five from the House,
headed by Senator Aiken and Congressmen Hope,

The President sent letters to the chairmen of the Senate and House
Agriculture Committees urging: (1) Rejection of the House provision
raising dairy supports to 80 per cent; (2) defeat of the House two-
price program for wheat; (3) acceptance of the four-year limit for
the wool program as provided by the Senate. Harold Cooley stated
rather bitterly that this was the first time he had known a President
"to write directly to conference members and attempt to influence
them."

People definitely were trying to influence me. Herschel Newsom
and some of his associates from the National Grange came pressing
hard for acceptance of the two-price plan for wheat. I regretted very
much having to tell Herschel that I could not agree and that there was
little chance that the conference would either. I did urge that we all

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 211

conduct an educational program on the proposal during the next year
so that the public might understand it better.

On August 1 6, the conference committee reported their recommenda-
tions. The two-price plan for wheat was out, dairy price support was
kept at 75 per cent of parity, and a four-year limitation was approved
on the wool program.

The report was approved in both the Senate and the House and on
Saturday, August 28, 1954, the President signed into law the Agricultural
Act of 1954.

While it did not contain all that we had sought, particularly with
respect to the levels of flexible price support, acceptance of the idea of
flexibility was a tremendous first step in the right direction. It was no
cure-all. It did not wipe out the surpluses. It would not have much im-
mediate effect. But it was the only firm stride toward sanity in the
price support program since 1949.

The Congress had also given us, in addition to this Act, the Agri-
cultural Trade Development and Assistance Act. This measure, which
soon became known as Public Law 480, provided for moving one
billion dollars 9 worth of commodities into special trade and relief chan-
nels over a three-year period. These two measures, together, gave us
the ability to launch a limited one-two punch against the complex
farm problem.

Many commentators agreed that this marked the greatest single
victory of the Administration up to that time and most were embarrass-
ingly complimentary. The Kiplinger Letter for August 14, 1954, stated:
"The principle of flexibility is established to replace rigidity. To ram
this through Congress took guts . . • in both Benson and Eisenhower.
Benson was David against Goliath . . . Eisenhower was his firm backer,
contrary to much political advice. It was principle vs. politics, and much
of the betting was on politics. Yet principle won."

Scripps-Howard columnist Charles Lucey wrote under a column head-
lined:

FOOLISH EZRA, THEY SAID OF MR. BENSON—
BUT HE BEAT THE FARM BLOC

They mocked him and called him stupid and denounced him as the
worst Agriculture Secretary in history and demanded that President
Eisenhower fire him.

But Ezra Benson stood his ground. Today he has emerged as hero of the
biggest legislative victory the Eisenhower Administration has had.

212 CROSS FIRE

And the late Tom Stokes, a long-time liberal columnist:

If ever anyone was in the doghouse politically, and rejected by a goodly
portion of his own Republican family — that was Secretary Benson not so
many months ago. Demands for his resignation were pouring into the
White House . . ,

Yet here he is today, still with us — and in fact just about the headstone
of the corner ... He has been his own best advocate of the agricultural
policy espoused by the administration. Not content to hide away in his
office here, and try to ride out the political stoixn when it broke months
ago, he took to the stump himself and argued his case in speech after
speech.

What a strange game is politics* How vast the difference in the treat-
ment when failure becomes success or vice versa. In March it seemed
an understatement when it was said I would not be called upon to do
much fall campaigning. Now, in August, candidates for Congress, old
and new, came to my office in droves to have their campaign pictures
taken, / had not changed. My principles remained what they were.
But success made all the difference.

At one low point during my first year as Secretary the President had
said to me, "Well, Ezra, you and I don't know much about politics,
but we're going to learn together."

Now in August of the second year, in the full flush of victory, I was
tempted to call the White House and say to my good friend, "Mr.
President, you said a mouthful"

17

Who Won

If you were to ask what major factor caused the breaking of the
farm bloc, I'm not sure I could say. Perhaps it was a kind of political
indigestion after swallowing their own propaganda. I do know that
all their arguments were stale, warmed over, and unimpressive. But
the same could not be said of their fighting spirit.

If anyone in the Administration had the notion that the bloc, having
been soundly defeated, would now lie down and play dead, he soon
learned otherwise. The farm issue was a cat with at least nine lives.
Our opponents, barely stopping to lick their wounds, set out to reverse
their defeat by taking the issue to the country in the elections of 1954.

No question about it, the "Benson program" was now the hottest
election issue in the farming areas. So be it. Welcoming the chance
to debate the issue all across the land, I packed my bags and hit the
campaign trail.

From early September until the elections on November 2, I made
speeches daily, except for Sundays. The itinerary took me to the
Northwest, to the Midwest, back to the East, again to the Midwest,
back once more to the Middle Atlantic States, out to the Mountain
States and the Great Plains, back to the Midwest, then to the Mountain
States again, back to the Midwest and finally for the windup to
California and the Far West. In the final two weeks of the campaign
I traveled 14,000 miles.

Such campaigning is a terrible ordeal but it is so exhilarating while
going on, you don't know how tired you are until you stop.

During campaigns you can't help mixing political and official func-
tions. Whatever you do or say has political meaning. Anytime we traveled

214 GROSS FIRE

to a strictly political meeting, however, our expenses were paid by
private or Republican committee funds.

On September 18, 1 spoke at the National Plowing Contest and Con-
servation Day at Olney, in southeastern Illinois. This was a legitimate
farm meeting, non-political; yet it had immense political potential. You
couldn't tell your audience to vote Republican; but you could talk about
the farm program and leave affiliation to their own good judgment.

While we were at Olney, one of those coincidences occurred that no
amount of money or Madison Avenue technique could arrange. For
four months this area of Illinois had been drying up. Everybody wanted
and needed rain. My arrival at the grounds was met with the first
downpour in eighteen weeks. The press would not be satisfied until
I had my picture taken in the rain. A second shower came in the
afternoon shortly before my speech.

One entirely unplanned, as far as we were concerned, and unsolicited
performance tunned out to be a political gold mine.

During the summer of 1954, Edward R. Murrow approached me
about the possibility of our family's appearing on his Friday night TV
show, "Person to Person." When I broached it at home Flora firmly
said, "No." She said she was fed up with publicity, the children were
getting too much already for their own good. I didn't argue the point;
in fact, I agreed with her. But Reed saw an opportunity here that
Flora and I overlooked. He began to talk about the show as a typical
Benson Home Family Night — stressing the importance of family unity,
prayers, recreation, fun. Flora wasn't impressed. "If you insist on this
show," she said to me, "have it down at your office. Leave the children
out of it." Well, we dropped it at that, and I figured the idea was
dead. But Reed kept promoting it, and very tactfully. It was a crusade
with him, a chance to encourage good American home life. After a
while Flora began to nibble at the Family Night idea. And finally she
not only agreed but threw all her energies into it.

Arrangements were made for our appearance on Friday night, Septem-
ber 24.

A few days before, Murrow and members of his CBS staff lunched
with Reed and me at the Department and explained the format of the
show. We were to carry through some of the things we would
normally do on a regular family evening. We were to give the TV
audience a picture of a Mormon home and family, distinguished by
Mormon standards and ideals.

On Friday the twenty-fourth I went to the office as usual, but came

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 215

home in the afternoon to find preparations for the show in full swing.
It was almost unbelievable to see the equipment required for this half-
hour performance: Three large TV cameras on wheels in the living
room and library — special lighting, huge cables, and four special tele-
phone lines — the garage filled with batteries and switchboards — a steel
tower rising 100 feet from a truck — a crew of ten men participating
in the preparations. I understand it costs CBS $20,000 just to set up a
half-hour performance.

The show itself went off very satisfactorily. We ran through it once
in a general way beforehand for timing; otherwise, there was no re-
hearsal. The children seemed very relaxed and Flora did an excellent
job in talking about home and family. The girls' quartet sang, Barbara
did a solo with Beverly at the piano and little Beth tap danced. To
make her tapping audible, we took my desk chair mat from my study.
Reed and Mark explained our missionary work and Church program.
We felt good when it was over, grateful to have had the opportunity.

After the show Murrow called long-distance from New York where
he had been located during the performance. He said he considered
it the best show he had done to date. The United Press said that the
show brought Murrow more fan mail than any other he had put on.
Look magazine commented:

The best shows often come from homes where one least expects to find
them. The visit to Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson turned out to
be one of the most popular. The Bensons and their six children staged an
informal musicale that ended with hymn singing. It made a moving family
portrait that was much more entertaining than most calls on show-
business celebrities.

Hundreds of letters came to the Department and our home, too,
from all quarters; from mothers and fathers, clergymen of all faiths,
business and professional people, even from children, and they were
most encouraging.

The President said to me with a big grin, "Ezra, besides all the rest
of it, it was the best political show you could have put on."

Quite by accident we learned that Bonnie's junior high school class-
mates had taken her to task because of the show. When she came to
school the following Monday, a group of girls accosted her. "We saw
you on television Friday," one said.

"I'm mad because I didn't see you," said another. "Why didn't you
let us know?"

"Yes, why didn't you tell us your father is a Cabinet member?"

Bonnie managed to talk her way out of her predicament, but nothing

2l6 CROSS FIRE

she could have said would have made Flora and me prouder than we
were at what she had not said.

I urged the President to make at least one farm speech during the
campaign. He agreed to do so, and we selected Indianapolis for the
address and October 15 as the date.

I arrived in Indianapolis in mid-afternoon of that day and went to the
airport to meet the President at 5:15 p.m. At 8 p.m. we attended a
meeting at the Butler University Field House where some 16,000 peo-
ple were in attendance. The President and his staff was more than
delighted both with the attendance and the enthusiastic response of the
crowd.

In this address, the President really laid it on the line in listing
what we had got through Congress in our first 21 months in office. It
was a mighty impressive list of accomplishments including:

A new law to use a billion dollars' worth of our farm commodities to
expand our foreign markets, authorization for the St. Lawrence Sea-
way, extension of social security to five and a half million farmers and
farm workers, an income tax break for farmers, a storage program for
more than 500,000,000 bushels of grain, effective incentives to wool
growers, independence to the Farm Credit Administration and pro-
vision for its eventual control by farmers themselves, and increased
Federal funds for agricultural research. There was more.

As the President said, in 21 months, we had gone far "toward build-
ing for our agriculture a foundation of enduring prosperity, in an
America at peace."

About three weeks before the November elections, I addressed the
annual convention of the National Catholic Rural Life Conference meet-
ing in Davenport, Iowa. I cited the "principle of subsidiarity" enunciated
by Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XI, namely that a central government
or large centralized unit of society should not take over functions which
could be adequately and properly carried out by smaller units of gov-
ernment or society.

This speech pointed out what we were trying to do for agriculture,
that our efforts to free farmers from regimentation and too much
dependence on government action were fully in accord with the principle
of subsidiarity. The day before I addressed the Conference, the delegates
had taken a resolution favoring, at least by implication, the Brannan
Plan approach, which, strangely, would have been a move toward
more centralization of authority. The Conference, then, was not pre-

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 217

disposed in my favor. Yet they gave me a warm welcome, excellent
attention and generous applause.

Monsignor Luigi Liguitti, the well-informed head of the Rural Life
Conference, told one of my aides after the elections: "You may not
know it, but that speech by the Secretary changed a lot of votes."

Just a few days after this, a political tragedy occurred, one which
upset me greatly. I had to take a rather active part in its resolution.

On October 17, I was shocked beyond expression to read in the
morning paper that Congressman Douglas R. Stringfellow of Utah, a
respected member of my Church, had confessed to perpetrating an
incredible fraud on his friends and supporters. Stringfellow, a thirty-
two-year-old Republican, had become famous as an OSS operative and
the leader of a daring, cloak-and-dagger raid into wartime Germany
in which he and his unit had allegedly captured Otto Hahn, a German
nuclear physicist, and sent him back to the Allies. Stringfellow, accord-
ing to his story, had been captured and tortured at Belsen and had
then escaped, becoming the sole survivor of his unit of 38 men. Partly
on the strength of his reputation as a war hero, Stringfellow had been
elected to Congress in 1952 and now in 1954 was seeking re-election.
When, in October, his story was challenged, he at first attempted to
brazen it out, but then decided to tell the whole truth. It came out
that Stringfellow had actually not served in the Office of Strategic
Services at all. He had been injured by a land mine explosion when he
was with the 14th Armored Division in Europe. Even in 1954, ten
years after his injury, he still walked only with the aid of braces and a
cane.

He admitted that after his release from the hospital, where he had
felt he would be a helpless cripple all his life, he had become the
"victim of my own glib tongue."

Stringfellow broadcast his confession with deep humility and obvious
contrition. I believed him when he said, "I have made some grievous
mistakes for which X am truly sorry. My heart is filled with sorrow for
any or all whom I may have hurt. I wish before my Heavenly Father
that I might undo this wrong. I ask your forgiveness and I assure you
I will spend a lifetime repenting and trying to make amends."

But there was no question but that the unfortunate man had for-
feited his place in public life, for the time being at least. Though the
first reaction to his dramatic radio and television confession was said
to be more favorable than not, I urged Utah Republican leaders to
take him up on his offer to step aside so that we could certify and
present another candidate. Our state leaders were really down as a

2l8 CROSS FIRE

result of this blow; but I insisted we could still get another candidate —
and still win even though some national Republican leaders had written
the district off as lost. After much persuasion, this action was adopted.
Henry Aldous Dixon, first suggested to me by Reed, a sixty-four-year-
old educator and college president, agreed to make the race.

During the campaign we ran into pressure from an unexpected
quarter.

Egg and poultry prices had softened during the summer and fall, due
to extremely heavy production. We found ourselves hard pressed to resist
political demands for a purchase program for eggs and laying hens —
this, even though the leading poultry producers, industry representa-
tives, and advisory committees, unanimously recommended against such
a program.

When prices were at their lowest and criticism of me at its highest,
we received at the USDA a shipment of eggs from Iowa. An ac-
companying letter indicated that the donor had calculated the cost of
transportation and was sending exactly enough eggs for me to sell at
the distressed prices then prevailing to provide me with a one-way train
ticket from Washington, D.C., to Salt Lake City. We gave the eggs to
a Washington relief agency.

As Election Day neared, new influences entered the picture coming
from no less potent a source than persons in and close to the White
House — specifically, Sherman Adams, Jerry Morgan, and Harold Stas-
sen. One day, Adams called our office (in my absence) and in his
clipped, precise tones insisted upon the need for a poultry purchase
program. My assistant patiently explained why we could not accom-
modate him. Then Adams asked, said the assistant: "When are you
guys going to get off your puritanical white horse and recognize political
needs?"

When this conversation was reported to me, I sent a letter to the
President, protesting Adams' interference with Department affairs. I
don't know what happened at the White House, but there was no more
pressure from Adams on this point.

I wondered just what effect this little contest between Adams and
me might have. Would it weaken our standing with the President?

A few weeks later, a member of the White House staff suggested in
Eisenhower's presence that his Secretary of Agriculture was a political
liability. The President turned on him, and, according to Gabe Hauge,
said: "Ezra is the shining star in the firmament of my administration."

How do you go about repaying loyalty and trust like that?

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 2ig

November 2, 1954, was Election Day. We waited anxiously for
the results; our farm policies were one of the principal issues on trial.
It is almost a law of U.S. politics that in the mid-term elections the party
in the White House loses a considerable part of its Congressional strength.
We Republicans had no excess seats to lose.

After the 1952 elections the Senate was divided as follows:

Republicans 48
Democrats 47

Independents 1

The House line up was:

Republicans 221

Democrats 213

Independents 1

It would be a remarkable upset if in the coming Congress we could
keep control of either chamber.

When the smoke had cleared on the day after the election, we found
that the Republicans had narrowly lost control of both Senate and
House.

The Senate division was:

Democrats 48

Republicans 47

Independents 1

The House was divided:

Democrats 232

Republicans 203

Though it was a blow to lose control of the Congress, in the USDA
we couldn't help but be pleased with the returns from the agricultural
areas.

Contrary to dire predictions that our agricultural stand would cripple
the Administration in the Midwest, a substantial majority of political
scientists and analysts now admitted that this stand had been a major
source of Republican strength.

In Iowa, one of our sharpest critics, Guy Gillette, a Democrat con-
sidered invincible because of his 18 years' service as a Senator, was
defeated by Thomas E. Martin who championed our program. In
Colorado and Ohio, Republicans unseated Democratic Senators. Re-
publican strength continued to prevail in the major farm states such

220 CROSS FIRE

as Kansas, Nebraska, and the West generally. Senator Clinton Ander-
son of New Mexico, a Democrat who had given us good support, was
decisively re-elected. Where the tide ran against the Administration, a
strong urban vote, not the farm vote, generally made the difference.
Moreover, several of the Republicans defeated had opposed our farm
program. And in Utah, Henry Aldous Dixon won Stringfellow's seat.

In my heart, I felt that our insistence that decisions be based upon
what is right had been fully vindicated. Daniel O'Connell, the Irish
patriot, once put it, "Nothing is politically right which is morally
wrong."

Jake More, Iowa Democratic Chairman, said laconically, "The farmers
were not as dissatisfied as we thought."

The Chicago Sun-Times headed an editorial "Benson Gets the Last
Laugh."

Commentator Lloyd Burlingame in a long analysis over a national
NBC hookup remarked:

"As the curtain of oratorical election smog lifts, a frontline victor
proves to be Ezra Taft Benson. Slated by men very wise in the vote-
garnering profession to walk the political plank, repudiated by some
farm groups, sent low-priced eggs with which to pay his fare home to
Utah, he stuck to his guns. At no time in the campaign did he
equivocate. He did not compromise or hedge or run away when under
attack,

"An analysis of the election finals proves Mr. Benson did not lose
his party votes, but rather, brought it substantial help. Even though
you may not agree with him on flexible versus rigid farm price sup-
ports, you will respect his f orthrightness and you must recognize him as
a winner.

"Mr, Benson's opponents in both parties have promised to make
farm legislation an early issue in the new Congress, They have pledged
to push for a reversal of present legislation and to work for a return
of price supports at 90 per cent of parity, defined long ago by Con-
gress as a fair return to food producers. It will be difficult to re-
deem that pledge. Not only have most supporters in both houses of
Mr. Benson's flexible scale emerged unscathed from election fires, but
new men will occupy seats won largely, it appears, because of sup-
porting the administration's agricultural program. Also there will be
missing the faces of men who were unseated chiefly by their opposition to
it."

These were richly satisfying, even heady, words; but the appraisal of

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 221

the election I liked best was an editorial in the Oklahoma City Times.
It was titled, "The Winnings— and Who Won," and it read:

"As the dust clears away and the fog settles down from the recent
election it is possible to get a clearer perspective of what actually hap-
pened.

"Secretary of Agriculture Benson won an impressive victory, uniquely
his own. Yet the total victory was infinitely greater.

"Hundreds of politicians won victories for themselves on November 2,
1954, but Secretary Benson won a victory for the United States of
America."

From my heart, I hoped these words would prove to be prophetic.

I had been urging the President to visit the beef cattle research
station at Front Royal, Virginia. He was interested in cattle, was
just starting a small herd of Black Angus at Gettysburg. At noon
on December 21, I presented myself at the White House and the
President and I rode together in his car to Front Royal. Being alone
and uninterrupted on the hour and a half trip gave us opportunity for
a fine visit. We ate a box lunch en route.

After we had discussed agricultural affairs for a while, I brought up
the question that had become foremost in my mind. "You'll remember,
Mr. President, that I agreed to serve until January of 1955. Now
that I have done so, I would be happy to be relieved of my re-
sponsibilities." From my viewpoint, this was certainly the time to resign.
The legislative victory during the summer and the political vindication
of the November elections would have permitted me to depart, if not
in a blaze of glory, at least with a few scattered bonfires. "I want
to do what you wish in the matter, but for my part I would be more
than happy and content to go back to my life's work in Utah."

The President flashed that quick look I had come to know so well.
As I recall his words, he shot back: "If you quit, I quit."

"Mr. President," I said, "you can't quit. You have a mandate
from the people for two more years."

Responding with his characteristic grin, he inquired whether the
Church was pressing me to resume my activities, "If it is necessary I'll
go to Salt Lake myself," he said, "to urge that you continue as my
Secretary of Agriculture."

The President showed great interest in the cattle research, and
particularly in some breeding experiments with Black Angus cattle.
Later in the afternoon, we drove over to the Marriott ranch. There we
found Mrs. Eisenhower; her mother, Mrs. Doud; and her sister and

222 CROSS FIRE

brother-in-law, Colonel and Mrs. Moore; as well as the Marriotts and
my wife and family (including Reed, Mark, and Lela) who, through
Flora's arrangement, had all come down from Washington that after-
noon to join us for the evening.

Following a delicious dinner, we all retired to the big living room in
the Marriotts 5 Mansion House and settled down for an evening of fun.
The President knew our custom of having a family hour one night
during the week, and he had expressed a wish to see how it was done.
So we put one on just as if we were at home. We began with group
singing. Then Mark and Reed did some of their comic skits. Reed gave
a couple of readings, and we prevailed on Flora to do one, too. The
girls sang and I did my part by leading the whole group in singing
"John Brown's Body." It was plain, old-fashioned, homespun enter-
tainment. The President and his party participated and seemed to
enjoy it. There was a roaring fire in the fireplace, because it was a
bitter cold and wintry night, and this helped make the evening especially
cozy. Our only regret was for the Secret Service men who had to stand
at their posts in the cold. For that reason, the President called things
to a halt at a reasonable hour and, a little reluctantly it seemed, we all
started back to Washington. He is that kind of man.

Another year was ending. Christmastime, with a three-day holiday,
was again at hand. Even though some of the family were down
with chicken pox and Beth had just got over hers, we had our usual
fine time together— that was the word, then, and even though the word
has fallen on hard times since, it still is — together.

This was the year in which the Eisenhower secu-
rity program came under intense fire. The Presi-
dent announced a balanced budget as one of his
prime objectives. A Presidential news conference
for the first time was filmed and shown on TV.
The AFL and CIO merged. The anti-polio Salk
vaccine was pronounced a success.

On the international front Winston Churchill, at
the age of eighty, retired as British Prime Minister
and Juan Per6n was deposed as President of Ar-
gentina. The cold war continued, but the interna-
tional picture was temporarily brightened by the
July "meeting at the summit" at Geneva. Debate
over defense and national security was intensified
by unrest in French North Africa and the Arab-
Israeli conflict in the Middle East.

And the nation prayed and held its breath at
news concerning President Eisenhower.

1955

18

Hurricanes — Senior and Junior Grade

New Year's, 1955, brought a note, one that I prize.

The White House
Augusta, Georgia
Dear Ezra:

My finest Christmas present has been delivered all year long — the
cooperation and the friendship of the members of the official family, who
daily help me on problems of the gravest import to our country and to
our world . . . My gratitude is equalled only by my profound hope that I
may continue to have your invaluable assistance as long as I shall be
called on to bear any governmental responsibility . . .

To you, Mrs. Benson, and the children, best wishes from Mrs. Ike and
me for a Happy New Year and a successful 1955.
With warmest personal regards,

As ever,

Dwight Eisenhower

As the old year ended, and a new one began, our stock in the
Administration and throughout most of the country stood at a two-
year high. Maybe we were about to enjoy a second honeymoon, this
time a real one, a longer one — we could hope, couldn't we?

But there seems to be a kind of law of political gravity which re-
quires that what goes up must eventually come down, and for me de-
flation was just around the corner.

I had worked to acquire a reputation as a good organizer, which
means in practice having a capacity for patience and taking pains.
After we got ourselves set up in 1953 and right up to the end of 1954,
our organization in the USDA purred like a custom-made motor.

The weak link in most organizations, once they're functioning smoothly,

226 CROSS FIRE

is the gap that occurs during replacement of key people. We learned
about that the hard way.

Of all the key spots in a Cabinet officer's department, none is more
sensitive in day to day operations than that of executive assistant to the
Secretary. The executive assistant is the direct channel between the
Secretary and much of the surrounding world. He sees people the
Secretary can't see; often he even decides who shall see the Secretary
and when. He takes hundreds of calls for the Secretary and handles
thousands of business details. We'd been fortunate in the capacity of
our executive assistants. Daken Broadhead, an experienced businessman,
came into the Department with me and served effectively until the
death of one of his business associates in August 1953 made it neces-
sary for him to return to California. He was succeeded by Ren Hoopes,
also a Galifornian, a district manager of Safeway Stores, who promised
to come in for a year. Ren made my job a lot easier in the 1 6 months
he served. But in early December 1954, he returned to Safeway, and
Milan Smith, a food processor from Pendleton, Oregon, took over.

Unfortunately Milan hardly had hung his hat and coat on the
clothes tree before a hurricane blew in at 150 miles an hour.

Its name was Ladejinsky.

Apparently, of no particular significance in the beginning, the Lade-
jinsky hurricane, before it blew itself out, had snarled the internal
security program and raised specters of anti-communism, anti-anti-com-
munism and even anti-Semitism.

What happened was this. Our reorganization of the Department had
brought about the transfer of the agricultural attaches from the jurisdic-
tion of the State Department to that of the USDA. This also brought
about a change in some of their functions. Under State, the attaches had
been involved in economic matters, some of which had little relation to
U.S. agriculture. Under the USDA, their involvement was to be with
agriculture and agricultural markets. With this change in job require-
ments it was obvious some of the old State Department attaches would
not qualify.

Determined to get the best men possible to fill these posts and
represent U.S. agriculture abroad, I insisted that the attaches should have
background and training in the production and marketing of U.S.
farm products; that they should be able to translate to the world our
agricultural policy, programs, and problems; and that as the eyes and
ears of our agriculture abroad, they should be able also to help U.S.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 227

exporters and processors by reflecting back to the Department the
agricultural situation in the country wherein they served.

To insure that these standards were met, we examined the back-
grounds, experience, and capabilities of each of the attaches. We wanted
to ascertain whether each individual could do this job for our agri-
culture before we hired him.

Among the prominent attaches under the State Department was one
Wolf Ladejinsky. A stocky, compact, dynamic individual, Ladejinsky
was famed as the man who had master-minded and spark-plugged land
reform in Japan — land reform being the breaking up of huge estates
into smaller, privately owned farms. For this he had been widely pub-
licized and highly praised as a valuable and dedicated public servant.
But when we examined his background, Ladejinsky did not have the
particular capabilities and experience we wanted in our agricultural
attaches. To put it bluntly, he didn't know enough about U.S. agricul-
ture. And it was agriculture we were interested in, not land reform
abroad.

Early in December 1954, word got out that Ladejinsky was going
to be one of the casualties in the transfer of the agricultural attaches.
Questions were asked and stories appeared in the New York, Chicago,
and other papers around the country.

Entirely apart from my judgment about Ladejinsky's lack of ag-
ricultural background, our security officer in the USDA (who was
also comparatively new and in a highly sensitive spot) recommended
against employing Ladejinsky because of some of the reports in his
security file. It was a question of the national interest. When this, too,
came out in the papers, the fat was really in the fire. The liberal and
anti-anti-communist press drew itself up to the full height of its indigna-
tion at this alleged crucifixion of a dedicated citizen and public servant.
They demanded that he be continued in his job. They missed the
point that so far as the Department of Agriculture was concerned,
Ladejinsky didn't have a job; he was applying for one.

Day after day the Ladejinsky case continued to get a big play in
the press and on the air. Bitter charges were hurled against the Eisen-
hower security program and me personally.

This placed the major emphasis not on Ladejinsky's qualifications
but on my responsibility under Executive Order 10450 which had
been issued on April 27, 1953, establishing a new security program for
the Federal service to replace the old Loyalty Review Board set up by
President Truman. Under E.O. 10450, the head of each Department or
agency was made responsible for establishing and maintaining an ef-

228 CROSS FIRE

fective program to insure that the employment of personnel was clearly
consistent with the national security. After reviewing all the available
facts, as presented in the Ladejinsky file and with the counsel of my
security officer, I was convinced that under the terms of E.O. 10450 a
question of security clearance could justifiably be raised.

On the other hand, I felt more and more strongly the longer I con-
sidered the ramifications of the Executive Order that some of its results
could be unfortunate. What it came down to was the judgment of the
Department or agency head. One such official might raise a question of
security all in good conscience; another in another department might
look at the same file and find the same person quite eligible. This is
exactly what happened. How can it be, we were asked, that Scott
McLeod of the State Department can clear this man and J, Glenn
Cassity in the USDA cannot? The answer was eventually given by
the President: this was a matter of judgment in which honest men
could honesdy disagree.

Late in December I prepared a release in which I outlined as best
I could the whole situation, taking pains to point out that I would
personally endeavor to see to it that Mr. Ladejinsky's rights would be
protected. Hoping that this would settle the matter, I instructed the
staff to have no further discussions on the case with the newsmen except
within the framework of the situation as I had just outlined it in
the release.

Then another bombshell burst. Under questioning by some reporters,
my new executive assistant made the mistake of mentioning the con-
tents of a letter sent to me by a former officer of the Russian czar.
Not only was this letter extremely critical of Mr. Ladejinsky personally,
its tone was anti-Semitic, This occurred in my absence and in that of
Earl Butz, who had succeeded John Davis as the assistant secretary and
who was in charge of the attaches.

Here was material for juicy headlines. Reading the papers I was
amazed to learn that the real basis of our dissatisfaction with Lade-
jinsky was not his lack of background in U.S. agriculture, nor wholly
his security status, but his being a Jew.

The fact that there was not a syllable of truth in this indictment
made it no less upsetting. But I was still determined to defend my
staff against excessive criticism for what I knew was an error in judg-
ment due to inexperience.

On January 5, I scheduled a news conference knowing that it
would revolve mostly around the Ladejinsky case. It did. I was on the
defensive most of the time, but I endeavored to put the best face I

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 229

could on the whole matter for both Ladejinsky and my executive as-
sistant.

The affair might have died the kind of death that is customary for
spectaculars largely created by the press — that is, demise by lack of
public interest — except that on the very day of our news conference,
Mr. Harold Stassen announced the appointment of Ladejinsky to the
Foreign Operations Administration to do land reform work in Vietnam.

Once more the reporters began to beat us furiously about the head
and ears.

I was, and am sorry about this regrettable case. There were some
errors in judgment involved, although none of them would have had
any bearing on the ultimate decision of whether or not we would employ
Ladejinsky as an attache. We would not; he wasn't qualified.

Some good that came out of the Ladejinsky case was that it exposed
the security program to new public scrutiny. A number of persons, and
I was among them, asked the President to institute a re-examination of
the security policy of the United States with respect to civilian em-
ployees. One of the improvements that resulted was a provision that a
person cleared by one agency should not be designated a security risk
by another until consultation between them indicated that all elements
of the case had been reviewed. If disagreement persisted, the case should
be reviewed by the Attorney General. Ladejinsky remained with the
ICA only about a year. Early in 1956 he had to resign because he
had bought stock in a Formosa glass firm. This was contrary to ICA
regulations prohibiting any employee of the agency from holding in-
vestments in American-aided businesses.

Our efforts to promote good relations with Congress continued. Never-
theless, it was quite apparent that trouble— if not a hurricane— was
brewing for us. With the Democrats controlling the Congress, Jamie
Whitten had become Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Agricul-
tural Appropriations. In our first hearing before this group on January
12, Whitten pre-empted most of the time by talking about sales of
surplus commodities abroad. He tried his best to make it appear that
the Department had not been doing all it was authorized to do in selling
abroad. It was a disappointing beginning. Chairman Whitten was try-
ing. Very trying.

In February during testimony before the House Committee on Agricul-
ture, the new chairman of this group, Harold Cooley, opened up on me
immediately.

230 CROSS FIRE

Cooley: Mr. Secretary, I would like to ask you a few questions* The
first is, if you believe in the flexible supports program, why was it that
you held the price supports program on dairy products at the highest
level allowed by law for fourteen long months when you first came into
office?

Benson: , , . During that time we were studying this whole problem.
As you know, we had representatives of the dairy industry in a good
many times, all segments of the industry. We were very anxious to see if
we could develop a program that would be better than the one that was
then on the books. In other words, we were anxious to see if we could
develop any improvement in the program that then existed.

Cooley: Well, if you believed also in lowering price supports grad-
ually, as you now say you do, why did you not lower the price supports
on dairy products gradually from 90 to 75 per cent rather than to do it
all at one time on April 1, 1954?

Benson: . . « Our Solicitor, and also at least one opinion outside
of the Department, indicate that under the law I was required to lower
the supports to a level that would bring forth adequate production. And
with the grade of stocks then in storage, with the prospective production,
as near as we could estimate it, it appeared that we would get adequate
production of dairy products with the supports placed at 75 per cent. . . .

Cooley: You said it took you and your associates fourteen months to
make up your minds with regard to the level of the price supports pro-
gram. It certainly did not take your Solicitor 14 months to read the
law and tell you what the law indicated, did it?

Benson: We have a good Solicitor and he usually makes up his
mind rather promptly,

Cooley: You do have a good Solicitor. I congratulate you.

Benson: Thank you,

Cooley: I know that it would not take him 14 months to read the
law because he helped us write that law.

Benson: As I pointed out earlier, all during this period we were
devoting a good deal of time to the study of the over-all problem, the
dairy problem. We were hopeful that we might come up with a program
that would be more effective and more workable and better for the
dairy farmer . . .

Cooley : If that action that was taken by you was good for the dairy
farmer, by the same token similar action in your opinion would have
been good for the producers of the basic commodities, would it not? . . .
Had you at that time been given a program of flexible price supports,

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 2$l

you would have lowered the price supports program on the basic com-
modities just as you did on the dairy products, would you not?

Benson: I would not.

Cooley: Why not?

Benson : Not necessarily. What I would do in each case would be to
study each commodity and do the thing that I thought was best for the
producers of those commodities.

Cooley: You know now that wheat was in a bad position?

Benson: That is right,

Cooley: On April i, 1954?

Benson: Yes.

Cooley: You say that if you had then possessed the authority to
have lowered the price supports program you would not have lowered
it as you did on dairy products?

Benson: I did not say that. I simply indicated that if I had the
authority, which, of course, I do not have because the basic commodities
are tied to a formula, but if I had had the authority I would have ap-
praised each commodity individually and then I would have done
the thing that I thought was best for the producers concerned within
the authority granted me by the Congress.

Cooley: Well now, you did appraise the situation and you did
recommend a flexible support program from 75 per cent of parity to
90 per cent of parity on the basic commodities program, did you not—
that was after you had appraised the situation and had studied it and
all of the legal applications of the program. You were somewhat dis-
appointed when the compromise of 82/2 per cent was approved by
Congress, were you not?

Benson: I felt originally— in fact my recommendations were that
we permit the 1949 act to go into effect which provides for flexibility
from 75 to 90 per cent.

Cooley: That is right. Now then when they presented the 82/2
per cent proposition on the floor of the House that was not your pro-
gram, was it?

Benson: I was a party to that.
Cooley: You were what?

Benson: I felt it was a move in the right direction.
Cooley: A move in the right direction?

Benson: Yes.

Cooley: To move up from 75 per cent to 82/2 per cent?

Benson: Yes, it provided —

232 CROSS FIRE

Cooley: If that was a move in the right direction, why not go up
to 90 per cent?

Benson: I mean, it provided for some flexibility, so it was a move
in the right direction.

Cooley: In other words, you accepted that because you could not
get the 75 per cent through, is that not true?

Benson : Well, most of our legislation is somewhat of a compromise,

Cooley: So you admit now that that was a compromise— it is a 50
per cent compromise from the position you had previously taken, is it
not?

Benson: I had recommended the 1949 act which provides for 75
to 90 per cent.

Cooley: During this whole 14 months that you held the dairy prod-
ucts at 90 per cent parity you were making speeches throughout the
country denouncing price support programs, were you not?

Benson: I discussed the farm problem rather broadly throughout
the country. And I pointed out some of the weaknesses that I felt existed
in the high rigid-supports program, which was intended as a war pro-
gram when it was inaugurated.

Cooley: And urged that the price supports level be lowered to 75
per cent, did you not?

Benson: No, I did not urge that but I simply urged a flexible
program and at the same time I also pointed out that it was the rec-
ommendation that there be a set-aside provided in legislation that
would tend to ease the adjustment,

Cooley: Well, now, if you were trying to accomplish the objective
that you had in mind, why did you not approach it forthrightly, rather
than to provide this subterfuge which is referred to as the set-aside, and
you know that it is a subterfuge and a fraud, do you not?

Benson: No, it is not a subterfuge,

Cooley: To set it aside and pretend that you do not have it,

Benson; What is that?

Cooley: To set it aside, four million bales of cotton, and close your
eyes and pretend that you do not even own it?

Benson: We do not pretend any such thing, and we know that we
do own it.

Cooley's hostile reaction to my testimony is put in perspective, per-
haps, when contrasted with his open-armed reception of testimony by
Walter Reuther, president of the CIO. Here is what he said to Mr.
Reuther.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 233

"As Chairman of the Committee, I would like to say that I think
you have just made one of the best speeches I have ever heard.

"I want to compliment you highly for your presentation. I regret that
it was not possible for every Member of both Houses of Congress to
have heard your speech. I earnestly hope that every Member of Con-
gress will read it, and will consider it in the same spirit in which you
have presented it.

"I especially regret that the president of the greatest farm organization
on earth could not have been here this morning to have heard the
speech that you have made on behalf of the farmers of our great country.

"I know that the members of this Committee have enjoyed your
presentation and I hope that it will be read throughout the length and
breadth of the farming areas of our vast Republic.

"We have had many farm leaders appear before this Committee dur-
ing the twenty years that I have served the Committee and I want to
say that not one of them has surpassed you in the presentation of the
farmer's cause.

"I agree with the sentiment that you have expressed and on behalf
of the Committee, myself particularly, I want to thank you for coming
here and giving us the benefit of your views,"

Some weeks later, Congressman Leslie C. Arends of Illinois described
to the House the extraordinary use that had been made of Reuther's
testimony under Cooley's high-handed leadership.

"I hold in my hand," Arends said, "a government document of-
ficially labeled a 'committee print, 5 entitled Price Support Program,
Basic Commodities, dated March 15, 1955. This, of course, was sent all
over the country. I have here two letters from people who have violently
objected to the fact that this has been sent to them under a frank as a
Committee document."

Arends then pointed out that usually the quantity printed of a Com-
mittee report accompanying a bill is 2300 copies and the Committee
hearings printed 1000. If there is a demand for more hearings and
more reports, an additional one or two thousand is authorized. Con-
gress, he said, often times takes action on an exceedingly meritorious
case, where there is public demand, and has 5000 more reports printed.

"But here we have something unusual . . . this Committee print of
the price-support program on basic commodities, embodying solely the
testimony of the CIO and AFL— how many of them do you think were
printed?— 57,000. It was done at the action of some member of the
Committee or of the staff of the House Committee on Agriculture, in

234 CROSS FIRE

either case by the authority of the Committee as a Committee print for
use of the Committee."

Mr. Arends then said he had made it his business to check with
six Republican members of the House Committee on Agriculture "and
not a single one of them knew any Committee action had been taken,
and this is required by Committee rules or at least comity in a matter
of this character. Not a Republican member was consulted about it."

Moreover, Arends continued, about 20,000 or more of the Com-
mittee prints were sent downtown and addressed by one of the labor
organizations and then returned and franked out to people all over this
country.

"Now mind you, of all this testimony, including that from representa-
tives of farmers themselves on a farm bill, the only part reprinted is that
of Walter Reuther, president of the CIO, and the comments of George
Meany, president of the AFL. However much these two distinguished
gentlemen may know about the farm problem, are we to believe that
they know much more than the farmers themselves and their rep-
resentatives? Is that the reason why their testimony, and only their
testimony, was printed as a Committee document for distribution?"

Meanwhile, with all the means available we were trying to keep up
the appeals to the country. In January I addressed the National Council
of Farmer Cooperatives in Chicago; the Farm and Home Week audience
in St. Paul; the National Dairy Council in Chicago, and the National
Cotton Council in Houston.

On February 2, I traveled to Fort Fairfield, Maine, to address a
meeting sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce there. It had been
pleasant in Washington and warm in Houston, but when the train
arrived in Fort Fairfield, somewhat behind schedule, there were four
feet of snow on the ground, and the temperature was 42 ° below zero.
The air was so crisp it seemed to crackle, like well-advertised cereal.

The Fort Fairfield delegation met me at the station with a one-
horse, two-seater cutter and furnished me with a heavy bear coat, a
fur cap with earmuffs and a fur rug. I drove the cutter to the hotel,
with the rest of the party following in automobiles — in closed auto-
mobiles, I might add. It was an exhilarating ride !

Despite the cold, 2000 persons showed up at the Armory that night,
and though I had to tell the potato growers things they didn't like to
hear — such as our reasons for not offering a potato subsidy — the re-
sponse was good.

We left Fort Fairfield the next morning and the following day flew

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 235

to St. Petersburg, Florida, to speak to the National Editorial Associa-
tion. The temperature was in the 80s. Speech-making was getting to be
like Capitol Hill politics.

The quest for favorable public relations can take you into all sorts of
situations, Edgar Bergen, the ventriloquist creator of Charlie McCarthy
and Mortimer Snerd, invited me to be interviewed on his Sunday night
radio show. I agreed, if he would tape the show on a weekday.

A script was prepared by Bergen's and my office, and the program
went on the air one Sunday in early 1955. It began with a serious
discussion of the farm problem by Bergen and me, but midway in the
interview, Mortimer came into the scene and from that moment took
over:

Benson: I'd like to meet Mortimer. If the Department could help
him, there isn't a farm problem in the country we couldn't lick.

Bergen: Well, I know Mortimer's been anxious to meet you. Oh,
Mortimer . . . Mortimer, this is Secretary of Agriculture Benson.

Mortimer: Secretary, eh? I thought we wuz gonna meet the top
man — Agriculture Benson himself.

Bergen: This is Agricul — Oh, never mind.

Benson: Mortimer, I'm glad of this opportunity to chat with you.
What are some of your current thoughts on agriculture?

Mortimer: Well, I think no farm should be without it.

Benson: I suppose you have a dirt farm.

Mortimer: Yup, but as soon as things is better I hope to have it
paved.

Bergen: Mortimer, Secretary Benson and I have been discussing
the problems of farmers with low-producing cows.

Mortimer: Wull, I've increased milk production from six buckets to
ten buckets.

Benson: How did you accomplish that?

Mortimer: By using smaller buckets.

Benson: I see. Do you have any other ways to raise production on
your farm?

Mortimer: Oh, sure, I got a lot more hogs than I used to.

Bergen: So you have hogs, Mortimer. I didn't know you raised
livestock.

Mortimer: Yup ... If they ain't alive they don't raise worth a
hang.

Benson: How many head of cattle did you sell this year?

236 CROSS FIRE

Mortimer: I don't sell 'em that way . . . You gotta take the whole
sheboom, feet and all.

Benson: Mortimer, you should learn to take advantage of the De-
partment of Agriculture's publications when you need technical help.
They cover a tremendous range of subjects. Take the latest thing in
chemical fertilizer . . . you'll find it in our pamphlets.

Mortimer: Don't you put it up in sacks no more?

Bergen: Mortimer, you've missed Secretary Benson's point. The
Department's pamphlets can show you how the latest advances in farm-
ing will increase your profit margin. For instance, you could up your
milk production with a milking machine.

Mortimer: Oh, I tried that, and my milk production fell.

Benson: Is that a fact?

Mortimer: Yeah. I wanted a milkin' machine so I traded my cow
for one . . , Right away my milk production dropped off to nothin'.

Bergen: Perhaps we'd better turn to a broader question. Mortimer,
how do you stand on parity?

Mortimer: Wuz I standin' on it? 'Scuse me, I'll get right off.

Bergen: Apparently, you don't know what parity is. Mr. Secretary,
I wonder if you'd tell the boy what parity is.

Benson: Surely, Mortimer, you know that parity is equality in pur-
chasing power— a ratio between prices received by farmers and those
paid for goods and services.

Mortimer (big take) : No! . . . Wull, I'U go along with that. But
not too far.

19

Trade Winds

The President had suggested a tour of the Latin American countries
several times and I had agreed to go when I could. Early 1955 presented
an opportunity. Arranging such a trip, of course, requires touching many
bases; much correspondence and conversation with the State Depart-
ment, our Embassies in Latin America, our agricultural attaches, and
the Ministers of Agriculture in the countries to be visited.

On the morning of February 19, we left Washington for a two-and-
a-half -week trip; we had fitted it around some VICORP meetings
scheduled for February 23 and 24 in St. Croix. Flora was accompany-
ing me to Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands and planned to
return to Washington with Secretary of the Interior McKay, while
Miller Shurtleff, of my staff, and I would go on to Trinidad, Costa
Rica, Venezuela, Colombia, Panama, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and
Mexico.

The President was well aware of the need for hemispheric solidarity.
Early in his Administration he had sent his brother, Milton, on a good-
will tour of our neighbors to the south. Believing it would be helpful
for others in his Administration, he wanted me to get better acquainted
with the agriculture and agricultural leaders of Latin America. There
was much to be gained from strengthened good will and understanding.

And as Secretary, I wanted to make the trip. A substantial volume of
our farm product exports moved to the south. How was this trade
progressing? How could it be expanded? Were our customers satisfied
with what we were sending them?

Exports of farm products are highly important to U.S. farmers, espe-
cially to producers of wheat, rice, cotton, barley, tobacco, soybeans, lard,
and sorghum grains. These exports are important, also, to the nation

238 CROSS FIRE

as a whole; our economy relies heavily on them for its export earnings.

When we took office in 1953, however, the value and quantity of
our farm exports was at a seven-year low — only $2,800,000,000. Partly
because unrealistic price supports allowed foreign producers to under-
sell us, we were losing foreign sales hand over fist. Competitors were
taking over markets for U.S. cotton, wheat, tobacco, and other com-
modities. To combat this trend, we had reorganized USDA foreign
agricultural activities to give the export side of marketing a new look
and new life.

To strengthen "agricultural intelligence" activities, we got the agricul-
tural attaches out of the State Department, as mentioned, and back in
the USDA where they belonged. We had initiated and helped lead
through Congress the Agricultural Trade Assistance and Development
Act of 1954 — popularly known as Public Law 480 — under which farm
surpluses could be sold for foreign currencies, bartered and donated to
the needy. We were developing for the first time cooperative arrange-
ments with trade and agriculture groups to further overseas market
promotion. We were initiating U.S. participation in international trade
fairs to show foreign consumers the wide variety and high quality of
U.S. farm products.

We were persisting in efforts to bring about a lowering of trade
barriers raised against U.S. farm products.

How were all these activities proceeding? What were the conditions
under which they must operate? I wanted to see for myself.

For still another reason, this one more personal, I was intensely in-
terested in Latin America. In the Book of Mormon, there are certain
prophecies about the lands of this hemisphere, our own and those of
Central and South America. All of North and South America is held to
be the Land of Zion— blessed lands, in our belief. There are great
promises for them in the Book of Monnon, which I accept whole-
heartedly, and the prospects for people who live according to the Gospel
of the Lord are infinite. Great civilizations once existed in Latin
America. So say both the Book and modern science as archaeologists
turn up increasing support for the Book's statements.

So I looked forward to this trip. We went first to Cuba to see the
Feria Ganadera, the Havana Livestock Show. Here, fine animals were on
exhibition: cattle, hogs, and horses of three types: Arabians, quarter
horses, and a breed of smaU animal only 14 or 15 hands high. These
animals, called caballos criollos (native horses) because they were de-
veloped in Cuba, have an amazingly steady, even, single-footed gait, and

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 239

to see skilled horsemen on these mounts is to know precisely what it
means to say, "he rides as though he were sitting in a chair."

The annual Red Ball at the Reparto Country Club showed us some
of the native culture. The featured entertainment was a show put on by
the young people of the club; they played recorded excerpts from
Spanish opera and pantomimed the music, with elaborate costumes
and striking stage settings.

We toured a number of farms including a highly successful poultry
farm raising New Hampshire chickens and a potato farm growing Red
Bliss potatoes, with the seed imported each year from North Dakota.
Aided by pipeline irrigation, the farm was producing large, good quality
potatoes, but they weren't getting very many per vine.

Visiting the Hershey Sugar Mill at Hershey, Cuba, we talked with
leaders of the Cuban sugar industry about prospects for future trade.

To Dr. Osvaldo Valdes de la Paz, Cuban Minister of Agriculture, I
gave a 4-H Club tie clasp, and made him an honorary member of the
4-H Clubs of the United States. "The four Hs stand for head, heart,
hands, and health," I told him. "We have over two million boys and
girls in this movement, and they are learning to be good citizens, good
farmers and good homemakers. They learn to do by doing."

Dr. Valdes thanked me, said he knew about the wonderful work of
4-H, and remarked that in Cuba they have something similar in their
5-C Clubs— the Cs standing for Cuba, cabeza (head), corozdn (heart),
civic responsibility, and cooperation.

Cuba in 1955 appeared relatively prosperous. Its dictator-president
Fulgencio Batista seemed confident of his power, so confident, indeed,
that during that year he released from prison in the Isla de Pinza two
political prisoner incarcerated for revolutionary activities. Their names
were Fidel and Raul Castro.

In Puerto Rico we visited the University Experiment Station and
were shown the work being done to promote wider utilization of such
Puerto Rican crops as guava and cherries. In the Virgin Islands, we
held VICORP meetings and then Flora returned to Washington. In
Trinidad I had an interesting tour of the Imperial College of Tropical
Agriculture and saw some of the experimental work being done to im-
prove production of sugar cane and cocoa.

The Venezuelan government had a new project just getting under
way at Calaboza, Guarico, where on land formerly used only in marginal
agricultural operations a large livestock project was now under way. The
land had been divided into farms of about 200 acres each. The govern-
ment provided a house, cattle barn, poultry house, and farm machinery

240 GROSS FIRE

including pumps for irrigation; it fenced the land, put in irrigation
ditches, built roads, provided electric power. The government wanted
immigrant farmers to homestead this area, and immigrants mostly from
Italy, Germany, and Spain were coming into the region at a rate of
about 2000 per month. The method of payment had not been definitely
decided, but it was expected to follow this general formula: no payments
the first year; payments on livestock and farm machinery after the first
year; payments on home and buildings after the second year; payments
on the land after five years*

Then in Turen, Portuguesa, we inspected a similar project which
had been in operation for four years. The Turen project was mostly in
crops such as sesame, corn, sugar cane and sisal, rather than livestock.
We visited a farm on which a German immigrant had settled when the
project opened. He had some fairly good dairy cows, a few pigs and
chickens. Judging by his late model car and the improvements in the
house and other buildings, he was obviously making a go of it. He
was paying on the machinery and buildings, but not as yet on the land.

Colombia's President Rojas received us at luncheon and we were taken
on a tour of a fine artificial dairy breeding establishment set up with the
help of the Rockefeller Foundation. The bulls were all imported from
the United States, and there were 500 Holstein heifers recently im-
ported from Holland. We visited dairy farms in an area that obviously
had great potential for dairying and general farming.

Colombia, like other Latin American nations, was very sensitive to
possible dumping of our agricultural surpluses abroad with adverse
effects on markets for their own products. Inevitably, this question came
up at a press conference held in the Embassy. "The United States
Government," I assured the reporters and officials, "will not drive world
prices down by unloading our surpluses into foreign markets. We intend
to compete for a reasonable share of world markets, but always fairly."

The coffee market was currently depressed. The Colombians wanted
to know how I assayed the future course of coffee prices. "Our govern-
ment, of course, does not have any control over the price of coffee," I
explained. "We don't grow coffee; we import it. I feel that coffee pro-
ducers should have a fair price, but whether they do depends upon
supply and demand. We have the same problem with our farm com-
modities." We visited a coffee experimental station at Chinchina and
then stopped at several coffee farms. An average size farm in Colombia
has about 5000 trees; some, of course, run much larger, while others
are small and very poor, being little more than subsistence operations.

In Panama, President Ricardo Arias Espinosa received us at his

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 24I

residence, La Loma. Flying into Costa Rica, the Switzerland of the
Americas, our pilot went low so that we had a good bird's-eye look at
the banana plantations — the extensive fields laid out in straight and
regular patterns. Costa Rica, we learned, had been doing promising
work in crossing pure native strains of cattle with Brahma cattle to
develop a strain with resistance to heat, fevers and ticks, combined
with good productivity.

In Nicaragua our hosts proudly announced that a local dairy co-
operative had ordered 10,000 pounds of our surplus CCC butter; ship-
ment was now en route. Here an interesting experiment was under way
to determine whether coffee could be grown without shade. The ex-
perimental trees planted in hedge rows were now three years old and
would bear a crop at the coming season. They seemed healthy and
productive. The secret, apparently, is to keep the roots of the tree
shaded with a mulch of corn stalks, grass or rock until the tree is big
enough to shade itself and conserve soil moisture.

Our last port of call, Mexico, brought us an interview with Presi-
dent Adolfo Ruiz Cortines, a visit with the Minister of Agriculture,
Flores Munez, dinner with Ambassador and Mrs. Francis White, and
an inspection of the Agricultural College and Experiment Station at
Chapinge. It was in Mexico that we saw probably the finest farm of
any visited on the entire trip. It was "Santa Monica," a beautiful dairy
spread owned by Mr. Morco Ortiz. His big herd of excellent Holsteins,
modern milking parlor and equipment stacked up as fine as any I had
seen anywhere in the United States. Ortiz was especially proud of his
Carnation bull, "Tip Top," imported from the U.S. for $30,000. "I
have another prize bull, too," he told me, "also from Carnation Farms."

"Whom do you know at Carnation?" I asked.

"I deal with Mr. Leness Hall? I rely on his judgment completely."

"Now that's very interesting," I said. "A small world."

"How so?"

"Leness Hall is, by marriage, my cousin. He was one of my top 4-H
Club leaders in Idaho in 1929."

This was a short, fast, furiously busy tour, only 18 days in all; yet
we came back with a great deal of valuable information and lasting
impressions. Perhaps the foremost impression was a deep sense of con-
trast, because we had seen side by side the very rich and the very poor,
the very new and the very old, the latest in science, right alongside
ancient superstitions.

In Venezuela we drove over a new highway built at a cost of $6,000-
000 per mile. But off the main highways the roads in Latin American

242 GROSS FIRE

countries were rough, dusty, and even primitive. We saw fine animal
research and rejoiced in this progress; but then we heard of such "cures"
for hoof-and-mouth disease as rubbing the tongue of infected animals
with half a lime and pressing in salt. We visited such an outstanding
dairy farm as that of Mr. Ortiz; but in other places we found cows
being milked in the barnyard, and new calves kept with their mothers
for six weeks after birth; the calves tied to the mother cow's legs, while
she was milked. We saw one mechanical cotton picker in the fields, but
on this farm the cotton was still sacked by hand for transportation to
the gin.

Here we admired a luxurious Spanish home, but not far distant,
home demonstration agents were trying to teach farm women to make
chairs out of barrels using corn husks for padding.

This was Latin America ... an area of rich promise and tremendous
potential; an area agriculturally about where we were in the United
States when the Homestead Act was passed in 1862; an area with vast
regions of undeveloped or underdeveloped lands. Except for some of
the larger farms and apart from such a crop as coffee, agriculture in
Latin America lags far behind ours in technology. Yet these raw lands,
brought into production, can become huge free world assets. But the
germs of unrest were plainly present.

All this I reported to the President on our return to Washington. He
invited me to a stag luncheon honoring Prime Minister Robert G.
Menzies of Australia and asked me to stay on afterward; for nearly an
hour we talked about Latin American problems and prospects.

He seemed pleased. As I was leaving, he said, "I hope you'll be able
to go back there again and elsewhere, too, and do the same kind of
job in other countries."

I thought I knew what he meant. A President is in a sense at the
mercy of his assistants. He depends on them to be his eyes and ears. He
sees his problems in part through their eyes and his information can
be only as good as his informants. The President, I know, had profited
greatly by Milton Eisenhower's report on Latin America. I felt a certain
pride at the trust he now seemingly placed in me.

The Quiet Months

The next few months were relatively quiet. We had no important new
legislative program before the Congress; it was an off-year for politics;
and international rather than domestic questions occupied most of the

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 243

Administration's attention. Our job in the USDA seemed temporarily
to be largely "keeping the store."

One day Senator James O. Eastland called shortly after he had made
a speech in Florida in support of our flexible program. "Senator," I
said, "nearly two years ago, do you remember, I urged you to go through
the South telling the people what you said in your introduction to my
speech at the Delta Council?"

"Yes, and I said that if I did I might not be re-elected,"
"Well, Senator, you were re-elected last fall, and you have nearly six
years ahead of you. I just want to say that I appreciate the speeches
you've been making and your open support of the Administration. I
think you are doing a great deal to improve the outlook for cotton
farmers."

The drought still lingered in the South and West. On April 25, ac-
companied by about 15 representatives of the press, some of my staff and
I boarded an Air Force plane, made available by the President, and
headed West to have another look at the dry areas and get firsthand
reports from the people. Southwestern Colorado was painfully enduring
its fourth consecutive year of dust and desolation. Some resentment had
arisen and been voiced in Farmers' Union circles over what they con-
sidered heartless disregard by the government. At Lamar, Colorado, I
addressed a public meeting of about 1500 farmers and ranchers. We
learned that some hotheads in the Farmers Union had tried to hold
an agitation meeting that very morning to block and break up the meet-
ing I was scheduled to address. They got nowhere. Governor Johnson,
a Democrat, publicly endorsed the Administration program of drought

aid.

Leaving Lamar, we went by car into southeastern Colorado and
southwestern Kansas, stopping to talk with groups gathered on the
steps of the county courthouses, in such places as Springfield, Colorado,
and Ulysses and Johnson, Kansas. We arrived in Liberal, Kansas, in
time for a late dinner and a still later meeting which ran until about
11:30.

Then it was quickly to bed in order to be up for a 5: 15 a.m. pan-
cake breakfast sponsored by the Junior Chamber of Commerce. At 6 a.m.
we were en route by car for Guymon, Oklahoma, Stratford, Texas,
and Amarillo. At Amarillo we met with officials of local grain co-
operatives and farm and ranch representatives for lunch, and then drove
to Tucumcari, New Mexico. It was a hard trip, through heavy dust
storms. We made frequent stops to talk with small groups of ranchers.

244 GROSS FIRE

On arrival in Tucumcari, I spoke to about 500 farmers from Texas and
New Mexico. After a midnight interview by long distance telephone
with the U. S. News & World Report, I went to bed, with all the win-
dows closed to keep the airborne sand from blowing right in and
penetrating clothes, bedcovers, and everything.

We learned much and I fervently hoped we had brought some com-
fort to the hard-pressed farmers if in no other way than to show them
we were deeply concerned and determined to help them. It was useful
to fly to some central point, and then travel out by car, getting out of
the car and walking onto the fields and up to groups of farm people
assembled at county seats and in little towns. For most of these people
this was probably the first time they had ever been near enough to a
Cabinet member to see the color of his eyes or to shake his hand. By
this I don't mean to imply that my predecessors had not also made
excursions into the field, but only that it is still a rare thing for the
citizens of this country to have personal contact with any member of
the President's official family.

That very night I put out a release that we would call a meeting of
the governors of the ten Great Plains States beginning May 31, to lay
plans for a long-time drought relief and drought-prevention program.
We wanted to save breeding herds and help farmers and ranchers keep
on in the livestock business.

Meantime, back at the other "ranch, 55 the Democrats had introduced
a bill in the House to wipe out the 1954 Act by extending rigid 90
per cent supports for three years.

Early in May, I attended a meeting of the legislative leaders at the
White House to see what could be done to defeat this measure, already
in its second day of debate. "It looks like another mighty hard fight is
shaping up," I reported to Flora that night. "And we may very well
lose this opening skirmish."

The measure came to a vote the next day. After an impassioned plea
by Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn, the House voted 206 to 201 to
reimpose rigid price support at 90 per cent of parity for three years.

We weren't worried yet; after all, there was a long way to go before
the Act of 1954 could be knocked out; but they did have a leg up.

In June, we finally achieved a goal I'd been working on for 18
months. At a dinner with Len Hall and a few other political leaders,
a decision was finally made to appoint a man to the Republican National
Committee who would give special attention to agricultural problems.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 245

Up to that time the agricultural specialist on the staff of the Committee
had been a rigid, 90-per-cent-of-parity man. Now at last we were to get
someone who really understood the problem. Len Hall himself did not
understand it, so it was doubly important to get someone who did.
I finally ended up letting Rollis Nelson of my staff take the post.

On June 30, the Prime Minister of Burma, U Nu, having an appoint-
ment, came to my outer office at the designated hour. As often oc-
curred, we were running behind schedule and I was tied up with
representatives of the British Embassy. Though I hurried as much as
possible there was a delay of about four minutes. By that time U Nu had
left.

This was evidently coming as close to an unpardonable sin as was
possible without going over the brink. It caused a furor in the State
Department.

This, I thought, called for a little Western diplomacy. So I telephoned
Flora. Together we made a call at Blair House where the Prime Minister
was staying. I made my apologies, and we visited not only with the Prime
Minister, but also with his wife, and at U Nu's suggestion arranged for a
conference with him and his wife in my office next morning. Believe me, I
was down to work early that morning and was ready and waiting at
8:45 when the Burmese Prime Minister and his party arrived. Flora
was with me. We had a good talk.

The U Nu's invited us to visit them in Burma, the press photog-
raphers had a field day, we got much better acquainted than if we
had had only the formal visit as planned for the day before and I
readily agreed with Shakespeare that all's well that ends well.

In July the President went to Geneva, Switzerland, for what Churchill
called a meeting "at the summit," with the top leaders of England,
France, and Russia: Anthony Eden, Prime Minister of England; Edgar
Faure, Premier of France; and Nikolai Bulganin, the Soviet Premier.
Nikita Khrushchev, as Secretary of the Communist Party, was also
present.

The President went off to this meeting with hopeful anticipation,
even though earlier he had doubted that much would be accomplished.
The big issue was disarmament, or more accurately, means to bring
about a reduction in arms. To this end, the President proposed that
the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. should give each other a complete blueprint
of their military establishments plus "facilities for aerial photography"

246 GROSS FIRE

so as to provide assurance against the possibility of great surprise attack.
This was the famous Open Skies proposal.

This bold offer made in the President's warm, friendly manner, yet
with utmost earnestness, had a profound impact on the conference. The
Soviet leaders expressed interest, and almost overnight new hope of
peace began to flower throughout the world.

So when Eisenhower came home on Sunday, July 24, there was in the
air a "spirit of Geneva," promise of a new era and, as Premier Faure
had put it, the belief "that something had changed in the world,"

Hundreds turned out to greet the soldier-statesman at MATS, the
Washington airport, Flora, Barbara, Beverly, and I among them.
Though the President's plane was late, the time passed quickly. We
enjoyed an hour with the Cabinet, and representatives of the Congress
and diplomatic corps. Even the soft summer rain that began just before
the President's plane touched ground, could not dampen the spirit of
the crowd and everyone wanted to go through with the welcoming
plans. With other members of the Cabinet, I was in the receiving line
at the ramp. We were all applauding, smiling, and waving hats and
hands. After speaking briefly on the radio and talking, with the Cabinet
and Congressmen, the President entered his car; then, seeing Flora and
the girls standing on the other side of the car, he made a special little
ceremony of turning to them, holding out his hand for a handshake and
giving them his warm, flashing smile.

This was something we had often noticed: whenever they are in a
line passing in front of the President at a reception, he always brightens
up and gives an especially cheery hello to Flora and the girls. A man
can stand up in considerable cross fire for such a boss.

During the President's absence Vice President Nixon ran the one
Cabinet meeting that was held. In opening, he asked me to offer a vocal
prayer, instead of the customary moment of silent prayer. I thought
no more about it, but when I came back to the office some
time later, I found this note on my desk from one of my secretaries.
The Vice President called to say ''Please tell Mr. Benson I was greatly
impressed with his prayer at Cabinet this morning." Evidently, he told
the press much the same thing, for the reporters, as on the other
occasion in New York, began asking for copies. Further publicity in
this respect appeared unseemly; I explained to Max Rabb, the secretary
of the Cabinet, that I had never written a prayer, except the one I had
tried to reconstruct in New York and I did not think it fitting to do
that again. He promised to handle the matter with the press.

Previously I've mentioned that the President used the Cabinet as a

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 247

kind of advisory committee. We didn't always agree but we managed to
iron out matters of policy. An excellent illustration of this use of the
Cabinet is provided by the way the special export programs of the USDA
were finally developed.

Under Public Law 480, provision was made for ways to dispose of
some of the surplus farm products. At first a minor conflict was pro-
voked due to the fact that State wanted the surplus disposal program
under its jurisdiction, while the USDA contended the Congress had
clearly intended that responsibility to be lodged in Agriculture. Though
this was decided in our favor, it failed to solve all the difficulties. Some
of our efforts to develop special export programs were strongly opposed
by Secretary Dulles and the State Department. It was a natural disagree-
ment. We wanted to move the surplus; Secretary Dulles feared we
might throw a monkey wrench into his efforts to develop over-all
world trade.

Issues of this nature were sometimes taken first to a neutral forum
for resolution, such as the Council on Foreign Economic Policy. It was
here that the cotton export policy was referred before finally being
resolved in Cabinet the summer of 1955.

Here was the situation. We had in government hands some 8,000,000
bales of cotton, acquired over the years under price support operations.
Not only was this surplus depressing the market for cotton, it was costing
taxpayers a pretty penny for storage, handling, and other charges. Since
our support price was several cents a pound higher than the world
price for cotton, foreign buyers naturally did their cotton buying else-
where. To meet this, we proposed to the Council on Foreign Economic
Policy that we sell about 1,000,000 bales abroad, meeting the world
price on a competitive bid basis. The Council turned us down by a vote
of eight to one.

We set to work on a modified proposal. Meanwhile, Senator Walter F.
George of Georgia, for whom Democrats and Republicans alike, in-
cluding the President, had high respect, asked the President if he could
confer on the problem with six or eight Senators from the cotton states.
The members of Congress from the South had by this time generally
come to recognize that foreign markets for U.S. cotton could be held
only if our price was competitive, or if our cotton was heavily sub-
sidized. As it developed, word of the meeting got out. With everybody
in the Congress in any way concerned with cotton wanting to attend,
instead of six or eight about a hundred persons showed up. They put a
good deal of pressure on the President to support the Department in
its proposal to move some of the surplus cotton into foreign markets.

248 CROSS FIRE

This I feared would boomerang, because the President resented being
pressured by anybody. So I was both glad and apprehensive when he
said he would talk with me later, alone. However, he was in his usual
good mood. After I gave him more of our ideas on the subject, he
called Secretary Dulles and said he'd like the State Department to co-
operate if possible in at least a small surplus cotton disposal program.

Following up on this the next day, I met with Secretaries Dulles,
Humphrey, and Weeks; Under Secretary of State Herbert Hoover, Jr.,
and Dr. Gabriel Hauge of the White House staff to see if we could
work out a general policy on cotton disposal. While we made some
headway in showing them the seriousness of the problem, they still
balked.

Accordingly, I went back to the White House next day to see the
President. "It's vital," I explained, "that we show to the world that
we are going to sell these surplus commodities competitively, but fairly,
and not go on holding them off the market while we lose our traditional
cotton outlets. We're simply holding an umbrella over our competitors
while they move in and take our markets." I explained that just the
announcement of our intention to compete might hold off further in-
creases in world cotton acreage.

Hauge, whom Eisenhower had called in, pointed out that in the
national interest we could not afford to upset our other trade programs;
I said there was no intention or necessity to do this. We did not want
to start a permanent subsidy program, but we were wholly justified in
subsidizing some sales of our lower grades of cotton. "As it is now," I
said, "foreign buyers axe able to purchase cotton on the world market
at several cents per pound less than we can sell it under our domestic
price support program. Why should we go on cutting our cotton acreage
while other countries increase theirs, and losing our cotton markets while
our competitors are gaining?"

The facts themselves were eloquent enough. Some thirty years before,
cotton had grown on close to 45,000,000 acres of United States farm-
land. In 1955, producers harvested less than 17,000,000 acres. Mean-
time, foreign acreage had increased by some 25,000,000 acres. Before
U.S. cotton growers began to hold the price umbrella for foreign pro-
ducers, cotton production abroad totaled about 12,000,000 bales. Now
in 1955 foreign cotton production was more than twice as large. Our
U.S. production, meantime, comparing 1955 and 1925 had dropped
about 10 per cent.

Moreover, the U.S., just before the price support programs began in
the 1930s, held 60 per cent or more of the world market. In 1955, our

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 249

cotton exports had dropped to about 18 per cent of the world total.
We had lost over two-thirds of our share of the foreign market.

"All right/ 5 the President directed, "we'll take this matter to Cabinet."

On Friday at Cabinet, the President gave me an hour to present the
problem and make our recommendations. We hammered on the cotton
question for almost two solid hours. In the long and spirited discussion
that followed, all the Cabinet members who spoke on the subject
sympathized in our predicament but opposed doing anything about it.
Only the President seemed somewhat inclined to go along with Agricul-
ture's recommendations. But still he didn't say yes or no.

"We'll go at this again next week," he announced. Meantime I was
to prepare a proposed press release and policy statement based on my
recommendation for the sale of a million bales of short-staple low-
grade cotton on a competitive basis beginning in 1956.

Next week, cotton again was the first and major item on the agenda.
I reviewed the case as I had presented it the week before and urged
approval of our press release and policy statement. Now there was some
support for our position. After another hour of discussion, we reached
general agreement. The President said, "All right, Ezra, you've got
your program."

This was fairly typical of how some policy issues were hammered out

A good spirit naturally prevailed for a while after the President's re-
turn from Geneva, since this was one of his high points in prestige and
popularity. As is usually true, the air of optimism and accomplishment
permeated all that we did.

In the discussion in Cabinet the Friday after his return, the President
referred to that first Cabinet meeting in New York City. He made it very
clear that this Administration must continue to be one of integrity,
efficiency, and honor. He repeated again what he said at that first
meeting that anyone who asked him for a favor because he was a relative
or a friend would be ordered out of his office.

My first contact with the Russians in the country was when Vladimir
Vladimirovich Matskevich and a group of agriculturists came over to
tour the U.S. farm country. Matskevich was the Russian Deputy Min-
ister of Agriculture and a deputy in the Supreme Soviet U.S.S.R. Al-
though unenthusiastic about their visit, we had the responsibility of
looking after and entertaining them. I had a personal conference with
Matskevich for some 35 minutes, the full delegation of thirteen was

250 CROSS FIRE

received in my office, and then were our guests at luncheon. In report-
ing on some of the chief aspects of our agriculture, I acknowledged
the contribution of the old world to U.S. farming. But I couldn't resist
a few plugs for free agriculture. People who are free make mistakes,
I suggested, but over-all we make fewer mistakes. Though I didn't say
so directly, I made it clear by implication that there is no place where
we have to take a back seat to communism — and especially in agricul-
ture.

Matskevich responded, commenting on practically everything I had
said except my references to freedom. His comments on what I had said
about peace and the relief of tension between our countries were in-
teresting and to the uninformed might even have seemed encouraging.
In the evening Flora and I attended a reception for the Russian delega-
tion at the Russian Embassy. Of course we were more than a little
reticent about extending open arms to this group. Over-all they seemed
rather cold, without much warmth in their spirits.

The quiet months also offered an opportunity to get out of the office
a little more. We spent an occasional day and night at the Marriott
ranch with a full twenty-four hours of relaxation, including a swim at
the Research Station. I felt a real need to get closer to the family. The
rush of duties kept us from being with one another as much as I wanted
to be. As I saw how rapidly the children were growing up, a wave of un-
easiness sometimes came over me. These days of parent-child relation-
ship once escaped could never be recaptured. We had to seize them
while they were at hand: seize them or lose them. I realized that
almost before Flora and I perceived it, our children would be fuUy
mature and away from us. Flora seemed to sense this even more than
I did, and she prompted and encouraged me to spend time with them
whenever I could.

As much a^ possible, we shared our joys and sorrows, triumphs and
failures, as a family. If Flora and I were going to a White House
reception, we had to pass inspection by the children before leaving the
house. Their comments, "Mom, you're nifty," "You're a knockout,"
meant far more to Flora than if she'd been declared one of Washing-
ton's ten best-dressed women. We always gave them a report next day
on the evening's festivities. Dinner-table conversation after such an event
was likely to be especially lively.

We shared in the children's games also, whenever it was appropriate.
Une night one of the girls and I scoured the neighborhood on a treasure

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 25I

hunt — and won. We came back with a most amazing assortment of
"treasure" — including a used tea bag, a 1954 automobile license plate,
and a 1916 penny.

I remember that Fourth of July in 1955. Beth, now ten, awakened
us early in the morning, with a request that we put up the flag. We
did, and that began a full day of celebration, which included going to
see the movie Davy Crockett, playing several games in the yard,
reading, and that evening viewing Washington's traditional and impres-
sive fireworks show.

We went to the top of the Department of Agriculture's Administration
Building where we had a perfect view of the rockets, flares and other
display on the Washington Monument grounds. Finally, we capped it
all by having a long visit together as a family. I will always remember
this as one of the loveliest holidays I have ever spent, one that deepened
my love and appreciation for my wife, our children, our home, and
this blessed land in which we Americans are privileged to live.

I wish there could have been much more of all this, but the duties of
our job were many and laid heavy on us. We really had all too little
time for relaxation with the family.

What a desolate place this world would be without family love and
family sharing!

Flora and I have our full quota of parental pride and our feelings
blossomed whenever one of the children brought home or was singled
out for some special honor. Beverly was given the D.A.R. Good Citizen-
ship Medal and Certificate and Bonnie the Kober Home Economics
Award and was chosen as the kindest and most courteous student in a
school-wide courtesy campaign.

This was the year Beverly graduated from Roosevelt High School.
What truly made our hearts glow was the report of an incident in
which Beverly figured. In science class one day Bev's teacher remarked
that a certain U. S. Department of Agriculture publication provided
good supplementary material for the topic, and asked if any of the
students would volunteer to get it.

Bev raised her hand. Evidently wishing to be sure that she understood
precisely what was involved, the teacher asked:

"You are volunteering, Beverly? Now where will you go to get this?"

"To the Department of Agriculture."

"And how will you obtain it?"

"I know someone who can get it for me?"

"Oh? Someone in your family?"

"My father. He works there."

r>e- 2 GROSS FIRE

"Oh, that's interesting. Tell us, what does he do?"

"Well, I guess you'd say he's in charge of it?"

"In charge of what, Beverly?"

"The Department?"

"You mean the entire Department of Agriculture?"

"Yes."

"You mean you're Secretary Benson's daughter?"

"Yes."

We saw again one of the reasons the children didn't like to be driven
to school functions in the limousine. They wanted to "make it" on
their own.

Flora employed the relatively quiet months of 1955, as well as other
quiet periods before and after, to draw me in on one of her favorite
projects: the scrapbooks. She believed each of the children should have
a family scrapbook; it helped promote family solidarity. Consequently,
she was forever getting extra pictures, and extra copies of newspapers,
magazines, and whatnot from which she would clip articles of family
or other significance.

Inevitably, when more important demands crowded her days and
weeks, Flora fell behind in her clipping service; and since the news-
papers and magazines naturally had to be stacked somewhere until she
could get at them, what place could possibly be more convenient than
under our bed?

Periodically, on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon, Flora would call us
into the clipping room. She'd have a big, brown envelope for each of
the children, and the job was to clip the papers and magazines and
stuff the material into the various envelopes. Somehow, this job proved
less than fascinating to me, especially when Flora happened to have
forgotten the page or title of the item and I would go searching through
a haystack of paper (such as a Sunday edition of the New York Times)
seeking a needle of news. Having fruitlessly gone through an entire
paper, I'd then be informed, "It must be just an item in one of the
columnist's pieces. I'm sure there's something in there."

It was with genuine relief that I would hear the telephone's ring
and the welcome words, "It's for you, Daddy." This gave me opportunity
to take the call in my office in the basement. Sometimes an hour would
elapse and I would be deep in my own reading before Flora, absorbed
in the beloved scrapbooks, would realize that the conversation must
long since have ended*

Or, more likely, she wasn't really fooled at all. Besides, I always had

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 253

just a faint suspicion that Flora's drafting me for clipping duty was
dictated less by a need of my services than by the conviction that my
basement office and work claimed too much of my time and took me
too much away from the family. If so, hers was a successful ruse.

20

A Problem of Plenty

"If you had it to do over again," an associate of Time magazine asked,
"would you have accepted the compromise of the Act of 1954? Or do
you now think it would have been wiser to have gone to Congress with
a farm program that went all the way?"

"You mean a program that would have given me, as Secretary, dis-
cretionary authority to set price supports at anywhere from zero to
90 per cent of parity," I asked, " — or, if not that, within a range of 60
to 90 per cent?"

"Yes, a sort of all or nothing approach."

"Well, I felt, and so did our advisory committee," I told him, "that
if we went up asking for a very wide range of price support in 1954, we
would get nothing. Realistically, we thought the most we could expect
was a range between 75 and 90 per cent. As it turned out, we had to
compromise even on that for 1955, the first year of the new program,
and settle for a range of 82 J4 to 90.

"In other words, we got the principle of flexibility approved for
I955 3 hut very little real flexibility."

"So the question becomes," the interviewer continued, "whether by
refusing to compromise in 1954, and taking a defeat, you could have
got more later."

"I guess we'll never know the answer to that. On the one hand, by
accepting a compromise in 1954, we achieved the psychological ad-
vantage of having broken through the farm bloc — something hardly
anyone had thought likely. On the other hand, we gave our opponents
the advantage of being able to pretend that Congress had given us
the program we wanted — therefore, they could criticize any failures

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 255

of farm policies as being our failures, when actually they were the
failures of the programs we inherited.

"But, as I look back, I don't believe there was any other practical
course open to us. We had to take what we could get. We had to make
a beginning somewhere. We had to start at least to reverse the 20 year
trend toward socialism in agriculture,"

This is my considered opinion; yet in 1955 I had my doubts.

The Agricultural Act of 1954 did not begin to operate until midway
or later in 1955, when the 1955 crops came to harvest. Meanwhile, sur-
pluses were building up fantastically despite all we could do through the
Agricultural Trade Assistance and Development Act of 1954, and other
authorizations to bring more farm commodities into use.

Between July 1, 1953, and the fall of 1955 — a little over two years —
we moved out of storage and into consumption commodities with a
cost value of about $4,000,000,000. It included more than 400,000,000
bushels of wheat, nearly 400,000,000 bushels of corn, 2,600,000,000
pounds of dairy products, and almost 4,500,000,000 pounds of cotton-
seed products.

Some parts of the surplus disposal program proved amazingly suc-
cessful. In February 1954 ^ e CCG held peak stocks of 1,200,000,000
pounds of cottonseed oil. A year and a half later we had not only dis-
posed of these stocks, we had moved out an additional 250,000,000
pounds acquired in the meantime. Most were exported; sold mainly for
dollars and at competitive prices.

Old-fashioned American salesmanship did the job. First, we assured
the world market that we would not dump oil abroad at very low
prices. Then we sent out marketing specialists with samples to show
buyers what kind of oil we had. We organized a sales force in the
CCC and hired a sales manager. And finally, through the cooperation
of industry, quality was kept high.

We had a record soybean crop in 1954; and soybeans, like cotton-
seed, are an oil crop. Yet almost the entire crop was marketed at above
support level prices at the same time that we were disposing of our
large stocks of cottonseed oil. Of the 300,000,000 bushels of soybeans
marketed in 1954, a record 60,000,000 bushels were exported. Virtually
all of these exports moved through straight commercial channels. There
was equal success in cutting down the dairy surplus. Whenever com-
mercial supplies turned up short we put CCC butter, cheese, and
nonfat dry milk on the sales counter. We stimulated exports for our

256 CROSS FIRE

dairy products by pricing butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milk at world
prices.

Many foreign countries and some international agencies asked us to
help fill some of the food deficiencies abroad, particularly for needy
people. We responded by donating butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milk,
and also by selling these dairy products at nominal sums. We bartered
dairy products for strategic materials and sold them for foreign currency.

A far-sighted exporter came to us, saying he thought he could recom-
bine CCC butter and nonfat dry milk into fluid milk for commercial
sale in some of the milk-short areas of the world. We worked out an
arrangement, and another outlet was provided for dairy products.

The emergency $50,000,000 Special School Milk Program, enacted
in 1954, through which pupils could buy milk at sharply reduced prices,
increased consumption by over 450,000,000 half pints of milk in its
first year of operation. About 9,000,000 children benefited from the
program, including those in 7000 schools where milk previously had
not been served.

A teacher in an elementary school in Minneapolis wrote to tell us
some of the results she had observed. "I made a chart," she wrote,
"keeping a record of the children's marks, and actually we found that
they greatly improved after they had been drinking milk. We com-
pared our attendance record, too, and found it much better than last
year." Another teacher in Marshall County, Tennessee, wrote, "The
pupils at our school each drink two bottles of milk a day, and over a
period of 5 months, they have gained an average of nearly 4 pounds
per child." In New Mexico, according to a report by school authorities,
a serious skin infection among school children disappeared soon after
the program started.

The program was a real help to dairy producers, too. In one Wyo-
ming community, for example, prior to the program, 38 milk producers
had been able to sell only part of their milk at Grade A prices. After
the program, 44 producers in the area were able to seU aU of their output
at Grade A prices from October through May.

^ These intensive efforts to get the government-owned dairy surplus
into channels of use were only a part of the total effort. Promotion by
afl the dairy industry, both processors and producer, had a wonderful
effect in boosting the consumption of many dairy products. The in-
dustry itself vigorously attacked the problem. We simply tried to help
wherever we could.

m The significant thing was that we were expanding markets and mov-
ing the dairy abundance into use while at the same time cushioning the

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 257

impact of the changes dairy fanners were undergoing. How much better
it would have been to operate so that dairy products would not move into
government warehouses but direct to consumers through private
markets.

In July 1954 our butter inventory totaled 467 million pounds. Twenty
months later our butter inventory was temporarily at zero. We were
"fresh out" — and mighty glad of it. Holdings of dry milk fell from
566,000,000 pounds in April 1954 to less than 100,000,000 pounds two
years later. Our stocks of cheese were cut about in half. This was a
true commodity success story.

Congressman Melvin H. Laird of Wisconsin came to lunch. He had
helped introduce a bill in 1954 to raise dairy supports from 75 per cent
of parity to 85. Now he told me he was enthusiastic about the dairy
situation and he urged me to get out and tell the story. Altogether,
surplus disposals of all commodities and products by the Commodity
Credit Corporation rose from just over $500,000,000 in fiscal 1953
to more than $1,400,000,000 in fiscal 1954, and to more than $2,100,-
000,000 in 1955.

Yet, it was a losing game.

What we gained in disposing of dairy and oil products was more
than offset by the fast-growing stocks of wheat, corn, and other com-
modities. We'd move a bushel out the front door only to have one and
a half bushels come in the back door.

By June 30, 1955, the CCC investment in price supported farm
commodities had risen to about $7,200,000,000. By December 1955 the
total was approaching $9,000,000,000.

The wheat carryover in 1955— the quantity unused from previous
years— totaled more than a billion bushels (up nearly 800,000,000 bushels
in three years) equal to almost two years domestic consumption.

The corn carryover also totaled more than a billion bushels— up
some 550,000,000 bushels in three years. The cotton carryover totaled
more than 11,000,000 bales— up 8,400,000 bales in three years.

I knew how a ship captain must feel as he watches his badly leaking
vessel take water— watches the sea creep higher and higher in the
hold. The surplus disposal programs were our water pumps, and we
had them going full speed. But for the time being the leak was bigger
than the pumps could handle. Would this sea of surplus crops over-
whelm us and sink us before we could plug the leak?

Meantime, the critics were in full cry. Reinforced by labor leaders
turned farm experts, they were shouting from the shore that we had
caused the leak. Farm prices, they blatantly contended, were being

258 GROSS FIRE

wrecked by flexible supports. Actually, not one bale of cotton, not one
bushel of corn or wheat, not one sack of rice, not one pound of pea-
nuts or tobacco had yet been placed under loan or sold to the gov-
ernment at less than 90 per cent of parity — and would not be until
the 1955 crops moved to market. And even then, the levels of support
would be unchanged for some commodities and be at most modestly
affected for others.

Fantastic as it seems, this propaganda began to take hold. Well-in-
formed farmers told me most of their farmer friends themselves believed
that flexible supports had been the prime factor in the price decline of
the preceding four years.

I laid it on the line in a speech before a meeting at Purdue University,
"I ask you — I urge you — I challenge you — in the sacred cause of truth
to make it your personal business to spike this falsehood whenever
and wherever you meet it"

By the summer of 1955, nothing could have been plainer than that
we were going to have to ask for additional legislation to cope with
the surpluses.

Cotton and wheat were in desperate circumstances. Farmers had
run smack into the high production, low price phase of the hog cycle.
Hog prices were on their way to a 15-year low, which they reached
late in 1955. (Hog production and prices follow a cycle which lasts
normally about five years; that is, there are about five years from one
high marketing peak to the next. The cycle occurs quite regularly; it
is simply the result of farmers 9 reactions to high or low hog prices,
feed supplies, and other factors as they plan their breeding programs
from year to year.)

Two things made the bottom of the cycle fail abnormally low in
^S-S 6 ' Fiist, the Korean War had interfered with the normal
operation of the previous cycle. Second, the high marketing phase of
the beef cycle (which is about a 15-year phenomenon) had come at
the same time as the high marketing phase of the hog cycle. With
both cattle and hogs flooding the market, hog prices were driven con-
siderably lower than would otherwise have happened.

No question about it; surpluses had become the number-one problem
in ILS. agriculture. No real hope of improving farm income was in
sight until the surpluses could be liquidated.

But how do you liquidate a surplus?

We had many long discussions about it in staff, in meetings with the

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 259

National Agricultural Advisory Commission, in informal conferences
with farm leaders and members of Congress, as well as in Cabinet and
at the White House.

I hesitated to push the subject at the White House or in Cabinet be-
cause the summer of 1955 was the time of the Geneva Conference, and
the President was most intensely concerned about bringing a new spirit
into international affairs, a new era of good feeling which could ease
world tensions and thaw out the cold war. Nevertheless, we did have
several discussions.

The plain fact is that there simply is no easy way to unload a
surplus. You can move some of the surplus into the domestic market —
but you can't let it enter into direct price competition with what is
being currently produced without further wrecking farmers' prices.

You can sell or give it away overseas — but here you must be careful
about upsetting world markets, depressing world prices, and stimulating
restrictive and retaliatory measures by other countries. This again ad-
versely affects farmers. Even countries we think of as being chronically
short of food do not welcome having our produce dumped upon their
market.

You might deliberately destroy the surplus — but this to me is un-
thinkable, although it was done during the New Deal of FDR and the
Fair Deal of Truman.

The fourth alternative is to bring about a sudden readjustment in
production by means of a crash program, meantime cushioning the
income shock for farmers in every possible way. This, to put it bluntly,
means paying farmers for not producing. The only way we could justify
it was because the government itself was largely responsible for the
whole mess. To pay, or be paid, for not producing is something that
just goes against the grain of most farm people, and I say frankly that
I could not for a long time bring myself to accept the idea, much less
recommend it.

But as the surpluses continued to pile up, it became evident that
some kind of crash program of this nature would have to be forth-
coming.

Somewhat sadly I set the staff, especially Don Paarlberg, to going
over plans for such a program— with instructions to find something as
unobjectionable as possible.

Meantime, I was going on the road. I was going to visit our biggest
market, Western Europe, to see what could be done to increase outlets
over there.

26o

Salesman at Large

GROSS FIRE

Both the President and I believed there was opportunity to build up
exports. We had Public Law 480 to help dispose of our surpluses for
foreign currency by barter and donation. But what we wanted most of
all was to sell our farm products for dollars.

To do that, we had to get out and sell; and by we I mean all the
various individuals and agencies concerned with foreign trade in farm
products.

There was much that private trade could do and there was a good
deal that government could do; but if we really were to build up ex-
ports of farm commodities to satisfactory levels, private trade and gov-
ernment had to work together, because there were some phases of this
problem that could only be handled under close cooperation.

The purpose in making this trade trip was to act as a kind of advance
man, going in to talk with government officials, particularly with min-
isters of agriculture. My job was to try to open closed doors, and open
wider those that were partly closed, for U.S. traders and trade organ-
izations. If for example, a high tariff was keeping our farm products
from entering a country, we 5 d try talking to the right people about
getting it reduced. If conversations and observations led to the con-
clusion that here or there U.S. food products could be introduced, we
would lay part of the ground work. But above all, my job was to ex-
plain to the officials and citizens of the countries visited that the Ad-
ministration would not under any circumstances dump our farm prod-
ucts abroad to the demoralization of world markets.

On August 28, Flora and I took off for Scotland, the start of an 18-
day trip to most of the countries of Western Europe.

Arriving at Prestwick Airport near Glasgow, we were taken by the
U. S. Consul General, Francis Flood, on a quick tour of Scottish
agriculture. After stopping to inspect an Ayrshire farm operated by the
Scottish Cooperative Wholesale, we drove down through Bobby Burns 9
country, visited his old home, saw the Brig about which he wrote, and
then drove south to the Scotch-English border and stood for a while at
Gretna Green, famous for runaway marriages in the early days.

When we could arrange some extra minutes we visited some places
full of memories for me. We went to Carlisle, to some of the spots I
had been as a missionary in 1921 and 1922. We went to the police

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 26l

station, to the square where I had preached, to the corner on which
we had held our street meetings.

I had often told Flora about my experiences on that mission. We
were holding a street meeting one Sunday night in an industrial town.
Some of the miners and workers of the area were tough.

A big crowd gathered. There had been a lot of opposition to the
Church of late; anti-Mormon articles in the papers and magazines and
some antagonistic sermons, even a picture show or two that put us in a
bad light. The crowd got so big we couldn't make them all hear. (This
was before the days of public address systems.) So we decided to speak
back to back. My companion spoke in one direction and I in the other.
We were getting along pretty well; but then came the closing hour for
the pubs — 9 or 10 o'clock, Fve forgotten which, and the rougher ele-
ment poured out on the streets, looking for excitement. Naturally they
gathered around on the edges of the crowd. Finding they couldn't hear
what we were saying, some of them began to yell, "What's going on?
What's the excitement?" Other shouts went up. Someone else yelled
back, "Mormons," and pretty soon the cry came, "It's those bloody
Mormons. Look, Mormons!"

That started it. The crowd got a little tense. Some, less cheerful now,
began pushing. And before we knew what was happening, a couple of
troublemakers shouted, "Let's get them. Get them under our feet."

They surged in on us, but we were both tall — tall enough in most
cases so we could almost put our elbows on the shoulders of those
around us. They couldn't get us down, but they did get us separated.

They pushed us around. Part of the crowd took my companion in
one direction and the rest took me in the other. It began to look ugly.
They weren't hitting, but they were yelling and shoving and they were
just wedged in all around. Just when I feared I couldn't stand up any
longer, all at once they fell back. A bulky-looking fellow elbowed up to
me. He looked me right in the eye, and he said loudly enough for the
crowd to hear, "I believe in what you said, and I'm not a Mormon."

He moved up alongside while the crowd just stood there. Then a big
policeman, a really big, husky bobby, came through and took me by the
arm. "You come with me," he said. "You're lucky to be alive in this
crowd." This policeman led me down three or four blocks away from
the mob and then he said, "Now you go on back to your lodge."

"My companion," I said, "he's around here somewhere."

"You go back to your lodge. I'll take care of him."

When I got back to the lodging my companion was not there. After
a couple of minutes I took my old bowler hat off — missionaries used to

262 CROSS FIRE

wear bowlers — put on a cap, changed my coat, and started back to see
if I could find him. As I got near the corner three or four persons that
had been in the crowd recognized me. "Have you seen your friend?"
they said.

"No, where is he?"

"Down there at the corner. One side of his head is all mashed in."

I started running as fast as I could toward the corner. I was nearly
there when I met the same policeman. He grabbed my arm. "I thought
I told you to go to your lodge."

"I've been there. I'm worried about my companion. They tell me he's
hurt. Where is he?"

"Well, he got a nasty blow on the side of his head but he's all right.
He might have gone to your quarters."

So I rushed back again, running all the way. When I got home, my
colleague was changing his clothes. "Where've you been?" he said. "I
was just going out to look for you."

Flora and I went on to London where I began a series of conferences
on British-U.S. trade with the Board of Trade and the Ministry of
Agriculture. We discussed cotton policy as it involved our exports and
British imports, and also explored the possibility of the British opening
their market to imports of U.S. fruits, especially citrus. I thought we
helped a little.

Then we went to the Netherlands where in company with the Minis-
ter of Agriculture we visited farms and surveyed the various agricultural
institutions of that land. Riding along one of the famous Dutch canals,
passing picturesque windmills and watching Holsteins grazing in rich
dairy pastures, I found myself remarking how different, yet how similar
agriculture is the world over. That is why, I think, farmers as a group
find it easier to understand and communicate with one another than
people in almost any other occupation.

Next— Denmark. We spent most of a Sunday in Koge, a little com-
munity that had been the home of Flora's father. We saw the home
where he had lived with his father, a sea captain and harbor master.
The home had a lovely garden in the back, just as it had, we learned,
in the old days. Flora wept a little as she saw this ground her father
had trod and by seeing it learned more about his life before emigrating
to this country*

^ The Danes are good farmers, we could teU that at a glance. We
visited a hog progeny station where Danish scientists and breeders were
doing outstanding work in developing "meat type hogs," animals with

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 263

more meat and less fat than the traditional U.S. hog. Since we were
experimenting with meat-type animals at Beltsville, Maryland, I was
especially interested. We had a good news conference in Copenhagen
and then were guests at a lovely state dinner in beautiful Kristianborg
Castle.

In France there were excellent conferences with officials of the gov-
ernment and leaders in agriculture and trade. We also held an impor-
tant meeting with twenty of our agricultural attaches who had come to
Paris from all over Europe. First we had an informal discussion during
which each of the attaches took some time to tell us about his work and
his background of experience. I must say that they impressed me, every
one. In my remarks I told of the high regard we had for their work, how
important it was for them to report and interpret information.

They had a responsibility also, I said, to promote better understand-
ing among men, to reduce human friction. . . . Never before had there
been a more urgent need for cooperation, good will, and understanding
among people. We owed to one another a basic loyalty.

In Rome I addressed the opening session of the International Federa-
tion of Agricultural Producers at their annual conference in the Food
and Agriculture Organization Building. Since some confusion had arisen
about how far we were prepared to go to move our farm products,
I laid down the three principles upon which our agricultural export
policy was and would continue to be based:

We would compete fairly on the world market.

We would be competitive in quality.

We would participate in mutually profitable international trade that
gave our customers abroad the continuous opportunity to earn the
foreign exchange they needed to buy our products.

As I spoke, the words were translated instantly into several languages.
Most of those present wore earphones so they could get the translation.
The world rapidly gets smaller. Would that it as rapidly gained under-
standing!

While we were in Rome, our charming U. S. Ambassador Clare
Boothe Luce took us in charge, arranged an official visit with men high
in the Italian government, including Prime Minister Antonio Segni,
and a tour of St. Peter's and other parts of Rome.

In Switzerland, on Sunday, September 11, I participated with Presi-
dent McKay in the dedication of a beautiful Mormon Temple, some
seven miles outside of Bern. Being privileged to speak, I told something
of the history of one of my progenitors, particularly my great-grand-
father, Serge Louis Ballif, who was the first of the Ballif family to join

264 CROSS FIRE

the Church. As I spoke, somehow I had the impression that those an-
cestors were with us in spirit at the services that morning.

The next day, Monday, was spent making the rounds of officials in
the Swiss Government, especially those involved with agriculture. We
discussed trade problems and I left feeling that a door had opened to
the sale of some wheat.

Before we left Switzerland, we had the privilege of spending a night
in the Alps at Interlaken. There, the rural people put on a program of
folk songs and dances, including Swiss Alpine horn music.

Here again, as in Holland and Denmark, the varieties, yet basic
similarity of agriculture round the world struck me forcefully. What
lovely countryside there is in Switzerland, with the farms high up on
the mountain slopes, everyone of them groomed to perfection.

Switzerland was our last port of call before heading back to Wash-
ington. But flying back across the Atlantic a flood of memories over-
flowed my mind, as I contemplated what we had just seen. Europe had
a different face by far than it had had nine years before when I had
gone there on a relief mission in February 1946. It is difficult for those
who did not see it to appreciate how terrible conditions were at the
end of the war in much of Europe. Often I have thanked God that my
family did not have to endure what I witnessed: the suffering, the pain,
the sickness, the hunger, the hopelessness.

And I didn't see it at its worst. One of our Mormon boys in uni-
form, Don Corbett, who was in Berlin at the war's end had reported:

The stagnant river flowing through Berlin was choked with debris, its
greenish waters befouled and malodorous from sewage and dead bodies.
Wreckage of war lay everywhere, burned-out streetcars, buses, automobiles,
and knocked-out tanks. Silent anti-aircraft guns pointed skyward from huge
concrete bunkers and from parks where they had fired their last shots.
Downed aircraft were to be seen in streets, back yards, and wedged between
trees in the Tiergarten . . .

The stench of death hung heavy over the ruins and escaped from the
flooded subways where 900 bodies of Nazi soldiers waited to be removed,
the men having been trapped by their own comrades when Hider ordered
them to open tie valves and let in water from an adjacent canal, thinking
to block the progress of the Russians soldiers through the subway toward
his bomb shelter. Russian soldiers, young and old were everywhere, self-
confident, and flushed with victory, making themselves obnoxious with
their bad behavior, moral indiscretions, and brutality toward civilians.

But in 1946 I had seen a country still in rubble: military, economic,
and spiritual. The cities still lay in ghastly ruin. The big railway stations
were twisted steel. Universities, opera houses and theaters, museums, art

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 265

galleries, hotels, palaces were masses of wreckage. But the worst wreck-
age of all had been wrought on the people. You could glimpse it in the
twitching faces, the fear-haunted eyes, the ruined reflexes, the weak-
ened spirits. It was quite common, I was told, to see a pedestrian,
squarely in the path of an approaching automobile, standing there un-
able to move out of the way. His legs would not obey his brain, or per-
haps his brain just didn't care enough any more whether he lived or
died. And so the car would come to a halt, while slowly, pathetically,
he would shuffle to the curb.

And the children, though they came around faster than many of
the adults, showed on their old, little countenances, the horror engen-
dered by the wailing sirens, the earth-shaking bombs, and the steady
pressure of constant and dreadful fear.

I remembered those first meetings with our people in Karlsruhe,
Hamburg, Berlin, Vienna, Selbongen in East Prussia, and in Czechoslo-
vakia, and Poland: the cold, bombed-out buildings, without light, with-
out heat, and these faithful souls, poorly clad but with the faith of
the Gospel written on their faces, a faith that had carried them through
the years of torment.

The first food our Church obtained for our people in Germany was
bought from the Swiss Government — sugar and canned milk. I have
never been able to describe to anyone what it meant to them. How do
you describe what food means to a starving person? And they were
starving, some of them; not just hungry, but literally close to the last
stages of starvation.

I remember, because I can never forget, the arrival of our first Church
welfare supplies in Berlin. I took one of the men, Brother Richard
Ranglack, by the arm and we walked down to the old battered ware-
house which was under the control of the International Red Cross.
Armed guards stood at the corners and it was their rifles that prevented
stealing and looting— the people of Berlin were half -crazed from hunger.
As we entered the warehouse, we walked to the far end, and there
we saw boxes piled almost to the ceiling.

"Are those boxes of food?" Richard said, "Do you mean to tell me
those boxes are full of food?"

"Yes," I replied, "food, and clothing, and bedding— and, I hope, a
few medical supplies."

We took down some of the boxes, Richard and I together. We
opened one, and for a moment I was disappointed. It was filled with the
commonest of common food, dried beans.

266 CROSS FIRE

As that good man saw it, he couldn't help putting his hands into it,
and running it through his fingers, and suddenly he broke down and
began to cry like a child.

We opened another box, this was filled with cracked wheat, with
nothing added or taken away, just as the Lord made it and intended it
to be. And again he touched it. After a moment he looked at me full
in the face, through his tearful eyes — and mine were wet, too — and he
said, slowly shaking his head, "Brother Benson, it is hard to believe
that people who have never seen us could do so much for us."

Now flying home to our land of abundance I thought of the signifi-
cance of that cracked wheat in terms of our huge surplus of wheat:
so far as preserving life and providing nutrition are concerned, wheat
is pretty much in a class by itself. You don't have to prepare it, except
to run it through a cracker, and a person can live on it with water for
a long time. It's cheap, easy to store, easy to handle. You can use it
cracked, just as it is, for cereal. If you have a little grinder, you can
make it into flour.

Food is meant to be used — yet used through free competitive mar-
kets, not government warehouses. It's against humanity to store ever-
larger stocks of it in warehouses in the U.S. when there are hungry and
weak people all over the world, if there are ways to make that food
available.

In nine years Europe had bounced back from desperate poverty to the
beginnings of real prosperity. And U.S. food had helped. But were we
using our food as well as we might in other parts of the world? We
didn't want to put the government directly into the food distribution
business, but couldn't we do more to work through existing private
agencies, such as the churches, welfare groups, and CAEE? We could
make available to these agencies all that they could distribute, without
limit, so long as there was no abuse, so long as these foods were not
employed for proselytizing and making ''wheat Christians" or "rice
Christians."

We had a good tool in P.L. 480, It could put our surpluses to good
use, making them available to the needy by outright gift or on terms
they could meet. It enabled us to make government to government agree-
ments for the sale of wheat and other grains, dairy products and other
commodities for foreign currency, and this would be a means of build-
ing markets for the future.

Along with P.L. 480 we could employ all the tested selling techniques
to move our goods for dollars. Surely, I thought, there are many foods

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 267

and food preparations that had recently become popular in the United
States which could profitably be introduced abroad. Earlier that year a
USDA marketing specialist had convinced the head of a large Swiss
grocery organization that U.S. poultry meat was tailor-made, so to
speak, for the Swiss market. When the first trial order of broiler chickens
was snapped up by enthusiastic consumers, the grocery firm placed a
large order. Other Swiss food chains, seeing how well these imports
were selling, also began to order,

(Later on, our Ambassador to Switzerland, Henry J. Taylor, took
to featuring fried chicken at his annual Fourth of July banquets. When
his guests learned that it was commonplace and economical in this
country to serve fried chicken twice or even three times a week be-
cause of the phenomenal growth of our broiler industry, they were
amazed.)

It looked like it might be a beginning of a sizable market for U.S.
dressed poultry. If this were so, why couldn't the same be done with
hot dogs, ice cream, frozen desserts maybe?

We were doing something along these lines by a token participation
in international trade fairs. But we could do much more through co-
operation with private firms and trade associations in arranging ex-
hibits at these fairs, demonstrating how to prepare certain foods and
distributing free samples.

Yes, we could do more — and we would.

Our plane touched down at the Washington National Airport and as
always it was a great joy to be home again. My mind was so full of
what I had seen in Europe and so enthralled with the potential for
American agricultural exports that I fervently hoped we might enjoy
a temporary truce in the battle over price supports so that we could
give more energy to the task of wisely using our surpluses. But in a
short time, the welcoming lights of the runway had started to turn
into flashing red warning signals.

Less than a week later, I attended a dinner in New Orleans given
by the New Orleans Cotton Exchange in honor of Senator Eastland.
In his speech that night the Senator said in substance:

"I can best describe the existing agricultural situation by recalling
this incident. A few days ago one of the Democratic senatorial leaders
came to me and said, 'I see the Secretary of Agriculture will soon be
home from Europe. We really have the gridiron hot for him/

"My answer, 5 ' said Eastland, "was as follows: The interesting thing

268 GROSS FIRE

about this is that the Secretary is entirely right on the matter of price
supports for cotton.'

"To which my Democratic colleague replied, 'Hell, I know that, but
this is politics. 3 "

21

The World Held Its Breath

The biggest, most unexpected shock of the year struck on September 24.
It happened in Denver where the President and Mrs. Eisenhower were
vacationing. It transcended and overshadowed all political considera-
tions.

Between 2 : 30 and 3 : 00 that morning, Mrs. Eisenhower heard the
President thrashing around in his bed. Going into his room, she found
him asleep. Thinking he had been having a nightmare, she spoke to him.
The President awakened, said he was all right, and Mamie went back
to bed. Some time later, however, he got up, went to his wife's room and
told her he had a pain in his chest.

Mrs. Eisenhower sent for the President's friend and personal physician,
Major General Howard M. Snyder at Lowry Air Force Base. He rushed
immediately to 750 Lafayette Street, the home of Mrs. Doud, where
the Eisenhowers were staying. An examination convinced Snyder that
the President was having a heart attack. Along with other treatment,
he gave him sedatives. About 4 o'clock in the morning, the President
fell asleep.

When he awakened at noon, Snyder and other doctors he had called
in took an electrocardiogram, which confirmed the damage to the Pres-
ident's heart. He was taken to the hospital in his own car, and it was
not until then — about 2:30 Denver time — that the story of the Presi-
dent's attack was made public. And the world held its breath.

It was a Saturday and I was spending it at home with Bonnie and
Beth. Flora had gone to Utah where Beverly was entering Brigham
Young University and where Barbara was preparing for her marriage
five days hence to Dr. Robert Harris Walker of Calgary, Alberta, Can-

270 CROSS FIRE

ada. Reed was also en route to Salt Lake. The Benson clan was gath-
ering for the second family wedding.

Sometime after 5 in the evening, the phone rang: John Foster Dulles
was calling.

"Ezra/' he said, "we've some bad news. The President has had a
heart attack.' 3

It hit me just the way Dr. Bryner's call had when Flora and Barbara
had the accident.

For just a second I didn't realize Dulles was continuing to speak.
Then I heard him say, "He's getting good care. General Snyder is
with him. I understand he was able to walk from the house to his car.
The reports are that it's a mild attack,"

Dulles told me that Hagerty had got the word from Murray Snyder
(no relative of the general). Hagerty had called Nixon, and then
General Persons, Dulles and one or two others had been commissioned
to alert the Cabinet and other officials,

Hagerty immediately flew to Denver with Colonel Thomas M.
Mattingly, Chief of Cardiology at Walter Reed Army Hospital.

Bonnie and Beth knew from my voice and expression on the phone
that something shocking had happened. I told them about the blow
that had fallen.

As soon as the initial shock passed, however, I suddenly had a feel-
ing of confidence that the President would recover and would serve out
his term of office. I can't explain it, but it was definitely there.

The business of government had to go on. The President would have
insisted on it.

So the next day, with Secretaries Dulles and Humphrey and some
officials from the State Department, I flew to Ottawa, Canada, for a
meeting of the Joint United States-Canadian Committee on Trade and
Economic Affairs. The discussion was frank and free, the Canadians
being critical of our vigorous surplus disposal policy and we making it
clear that we did not intend to sit back and let our markets go by de-
fault.

"We expect to compete for our share," I said rather bluntly, "but
we'll compete fair and square."

Shortly before our conference ended on Monday, September 26, we
learned that the President's illness had produced a serious break in the
New York Stock Exchange.

After talking it over, we decided that George Humphrey should

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 27I

issue a "brief statement of reassurance." This was done as we left Ottawa
about 5:30,

Barbara's wedding was set for Thursday, September 29. With the two
girls, I flew to Salt Lake on Tuesday. We went immediately to the
Hotel Utah for a family reunion.

On Thursday at 9 o'clock, I attended a special meeting of all the
General Authorities in the Temple, where we met, fasting and praying.
At 1 1 o'clock I left to perform the marriage. Before we gathered in the
Sealing Room, I talked with Bob and Barbara for a while, calling to
their minds the sweet seriousness of the step they were about to take.
Then we went into the Room. Only the two families and close friends
were there. In the presence of their loved ones, I gave the young couple
further counsel and performed the marriage. It was a joyful occasion,
and a sweet soul-satisfying spirit was present.

At 1 o'clock we all gathered for the wedding breakfast in the Hotel
Utah. As a special favor to Flora and me, Barbara sang "I Love You
Truly." Twenty-nine years before in that same month and in that same
hotel the same song had been sung at our wedding breakfast.

After this, I left by plane for Washington, arriving next morning at
8 a.m. just in time to change clothes before going to Cabinet.

The numbing news of Ike's brush with death was followed by weeks
of uncertainty. His team rallied quickly, functioning well, but it would
be idle to suggest that we did not keenly miss the General's hand.

Vice President Nixon consulted the members of the Cabinet about
whether he should call a Cabinet meeting for Friday, September 30.
Although nothing had been scheduled, the Vice President felt a meet-
ing would demonstrate that the government was functioning in an
orderly way. All of us agreed. At 9 : 30 Nixon came into Cabinet looking
very serious. He sat in his Vice President's chair, Humphrey on his
right, Brownell on his left, across from the President's empty chair. No
agenda had been prepared. After calling the meeting to order, asking
for silent prayer, and then reading the morning bulletin from Denver,
Nixon asked Secretary Dulles to review the problems facing the country
in foreign affairs.

Next we moved into a discussion of how the government should
operate during the President's absence. We agreed to issue a statement
that "there are no obstacles to the orderly and uninterrupted conduct of
the foreign and domestic affairs of the nation during the period of rest
ordered by the President's physicians." The statement went on to say that

272 CROSS FIRE

the President's policies are "well established along definite lines and are
well known." Actions taken would of course follow policies already laid
down by the Administration. New policies of importance would be held
for the President's return.

Discussion of several minor problems followed, before the meeting
ended about noon. Secretary Dulles on behalf of the Cabinet said to
Nixon in substance: "We want to express our appreciation for the way
you have carried out your responsibilities during the past week. You
have been under great strain but you have given the country the as-
surance it needed."

After Cabinet, Sherman Adams and I left by official plane for Denver
where a "Denver White House" had been set up. The President was
able to resume very simple activities. And he wanted very much to have
the feeling that he was on the job even while in bed.

Adams stayed in Denver to channel to Eisenhower such work and
decisions as the doctors permitted. He flew back to Washington how-
ever for the Cabinet meeting of October 7, as he did for all the weekly
Cabinet meetings thereafter.

About an hour and a half of the October 7 three-hour meeting was
devoted to a consideration of the agricultural problem and our proposed
legislation for 1956. Taking an hour to present the problem as we saw
it I pointed out that: the farm situation was not likely to improve in
1956; there was a need for legislation that would help farmers get rid
of surpluses, and we had to work together to support the Republican
farm program.

Most of those present were in full sympathy with this approach; a
few, however, seemed a bit nervous. They had been listening to some of
the politicians who still wanted to resort to quack remedies to satisfy
political pressure.

Harold Stassen, for example, said more "dramatic" steps had to be
taken — something had to be done to strengthen hog prices. Brownell
remarked that the farm recession was in sharp contrast to the good in-
dustrial situation. Humphrey countered that he didn't think much
could be done, other than what we proposed. There is no panacea for
farm problems, he said, and no reason for panic. Dulles and McKay,
among others, took much the same position. When it was agreed that
the Administration would look to the Department for leadership in this
matter, I was satisfied with the outcome. Nixon had little to say and
seemed rather non-committal.

During October, the President began seeing the Cabinet and other
officials one by one. My turn came late that month.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 273

We had scheduled a vitally important meeting in the Midwest — in
the Moorhead, Minnesota-Fargo, North Dakota, community.

Warnings had come from the field that organized groups were pre-
paring to come to the meeting to boo whenever I said anything against
rigid price supports or in favor of our program.

My staff was most apprehensive about this report. As I left the De-
partment to go to the airport, Assistant Secretary Earl Butz handed
me an envelope.

I opened it and read:

Ezra:

As you enter into a very difficult weekend, we want you to know that a
lot of us are hoping and praying for you.

Remember always that many of your friends feel that a great source of
your personal strength is that you walk beside God, whereas most of the
rest of us only report to Him.

Keep in step and you surely will emerge the victor from this test.

We're counting on you.

Earl Butz

Earl was not given to parading his religious beliefs. On the contrary,
he was much more prone to hide what he felt about his Maker behind a
sort of devil-may-care exterior. His putting these sentiments on paper
meant more to me than I can express.

Reaching the Moorhead-Fargo area about noon, I spent much of the
afternoon visiting farms. I had asked those in charge of the arrange-
ment to be sure that among these farms two at least were operated
by Farmers Union members who opposed our program. On all the
farms I felt we made friends.

I talked with the farmers while walking through a barn, feed lot, or a
wheat or corn field. This was something I'd been doing for thirty years,
and I saw no reason to stop when I became Secretary. We needed and
welcomed farmers' ideas and reactions. Though I knew it was undoubt-
edly good public relations to be able to walk into a barn, pick up a hand-
ful of mixed feed, inspect it carefully, smell it, and then ask the farmer a
meaningful question about his rate of gain on livestock, I did it
principally because I was sincerely and deeply interested. If it im-
pressed the farmer that here was a Secretary of Agriculture who knew
something about the business, that was a boon; but it was an extra, not
the real dividend. I overheard one farmer tell his wife, "He knows as
much about the dairy business as I do. We compared production rec-
ords of our Holsteins with those Holsteins he used to milk on his own
farm in Idaho."

274 CROSS FIRE

This meeting that night, held in the Concordia College field house in
Moorhead, was a big one. About 7000 people packed the bleachers. Only
once — when I said that all of the price decline in agriculture had come
when rigid 90 per cent supports were in effect — was there any booing;
and then only about 10 persons raised their voices and they were im-
mediately drowned out by widespread applause. The talk was inter-
rupted by applause several times.

I spoke for over an hour, answered questions from the floor for 45
minutes, and spent another good half hour shaking hands and giving
autographs.

As I was leaving, a one-time Republican Congressman came up to me.
A year before (in 1954) he had campaigned against our program and
lost.

"Ezra," he said, "I just wanted to tell you that I'm going to support
you and your program wholeheartedly when I get into the race again
next year."

After spending the night at Fargo I was picked up next morning at
the Fargo airport by the President's plane, the Columbine, with
Arthur Summerfield, Sherman Adams, and Milton Eisenhower aboard.
The ride to Denver provided opportunity for a pleasant visit with Art,
Sherm and Milton. We worked over a proposed release which we
thought we might ask the President to endorse and also a 6-Point Pro-
gram I had developed the night before, together with a statement
which I thought I might give the press following my conference with
the President.

Upon reaching Denver about noon, I went immediately to the Brown
Palace Hotel to continue working on the material to be presented to the
President later in the day. At Fitzsimmons Army Hospital that after-
noon, I was briefed by the doctors regarding the visit. I also had time
to ask Jim Hagerty to go over the proposed statement and my 6-Point
Program and other material which I hoped to release to the press.

With Adams and Milton Eisenhower, I entered the President's room
at about 3:30. He was elevated in bed near the window. He gave us a
cheerful hearty greeting.

He looked me over as though I were the patient.
"Ezra, you look tired," he said. "Don't let these doctors fool you. They
told me I was in perfect health before this heart attack came."

It was just like Ike to be concerned about others while he was lying in
a sick bed.

"Mr. President," I said, "I have greetings for you from a great many
people but particularly from Flora and all of our family, as well as

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 275

from our whole staff at Agriculture. And I bring special greetings, too,
from the head of our Church, President David O. McKay. He sends
his good wishes and his prayers. And I think you might like to know
that in the General Conference of our Church this month, you were
remembered in all the spontaneous prayers offered at every one of the
seven sessions."

He seemed momentarily lost for words.

"I'd like you to know, too, Mr. President," I said, "that you are re-
membered morning and night in our family prayer in our home, and
also in our Thursday morning staff meeting in the Department."

Ike put up his hands as if to stop me. He was obviously moved so I
ended quickly. "In fact, I guess no man living or dead within my mem-
ory has had so many prayers ascend to heaven as you, Mr. President."

After not saying anything for a few seconds, he expressed his deep
gratitude for the faith and prayers of all who were remembering him.

When we got into the farm situation, including the hog problem
and plans for the future, the President's response was most satisfactory.
He approved the release and authorized Jim Hagerty to read it to the
press. He thought the six points were fine. We had a most pleasant visit
of about 35 minutes, somewhat longer than intended.

When I got up to go, he made it plain that he had enjoyed the con-
ference quite as much as I, which was a great deal.

Meantime, Mrs. Eisenhower had sent word that she wanted to see me
before I left the building. I went to her room on the same floor, in the
opposite corner from the President's, to find her sitting up in bed. She
had not been feeling too well.

I mentioned how delighted we all were to find the President progress-
ing, and how much we back in Washington missed them both. She in-
quired about Flora and each of the children. "I was so pleased," she
said, "to read about Flora's selection as Home Maker of the Year."

This had been announced just three days before at a special luncheon
in Flora's honor. Mamie's congratulations was the crowning glory
as far as both Flora and I were concerned. Here was the First Lady of
the land, her husband recently stricken and she herself not well, and
almost the first words she spoke were to tell me how pleased she was
because an honor had come to her friend, my wife. This genuine inter-
est and unselfish joy in the good fortune of others is one of Ike's and
Mamie's strong characteristics.

Jim Hagerty came to the door to remind me that we had some fifty
members of the press and TV waiting and that newspapers throughout

276 CROSS FIRE

the eastern half of the country were holding space. As I bade the First
Lady goodby, she said, "Give Flora a hug and kiss for me."

The news conference was completely satisfactory from every angle.
Jim read the brief statement from the President. It took about two
minutes. I told of my visit with the President, that he looked well, that
the conversation had given me a great uplift and that I was pleased
with his deep interest and understanding of the farm problems; also that
we had reviewed the farm situation. "The President shares with me a
deep concern for the farmer and a determination to use all the tools of
Government in a sound attempt to help farmers meet the present cost-
price squeeze — which is real Farmers must receive their fair share of
our unprecedented prosperity. This Administration will not attempt
to out-promise or out-appropriate some who would put politics above
needs and lead the farmers backward rather than forward. But we are
convinced that the future of agriculture is bright."

The 6-Point Program to help U.S. farmers share more fully in the
nation's prosperity was released:

1. A stepped-up program of surplus disposal and expansion of exports.

2. A vigorous purchase program to remove market gluts wherever they

occur and assist farmers in adjusting to market demands.

3. An enlarged program of soil conservation and incentive payments to

divert cropland into grass, trees, and forage, particularly in drought
areas.

4. Expansion of the Rural Development Program for low-income farm

families.

5. A stepped-up program of research, emphasizing lower costs of pro-

duction, new uses for farm products, new crops, and expansion of
markets.

6. A speed-up in the Great Plains Program in cooperation with the ten

states involved. This is a program concentrated in the area between
the Rocky Mountains and the Corn Belt— generally the nation's graz-
ing and wheat center— to make better use of the land and achieve a
better balance of production.

There would be other new features I pointed out which obviously
could not be announced at that time. These would be ready when the
Congress reconvened.

What we had done in the past three yeans was sound. "But farm

policy," I said, quoting the President, "is never a completed task. It

must be dynamic, adapting to changing conditions."

^ After dinner and a vigorous half-hour walk, I retired about 10 p.m.

tired but so pleased with the results of the day that I found it difficult to

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 277

sleep. When I did drop off, it was to awaken again at 3 o'clock. So I got
up and wrote notes to Mrs. Eisenhower and the President:

Dear Mamie:

It was wonderful to see you today. Thanks for calling me in. I called
Flora and told her of our brief visit. She was delighted and only wished
she might have been here.

We both love and appreciate you and constantly pray for your welfare
and happiness. May a kind Providence ever sustain you that your many
years to come will be your happiest.

God bless you.

As ever,

Ezra and Flora too.

Dear Ike:

I hope that I may use this salutation. It seems right.

It was wonderful to see you today. You look great. Thanks for that
statement for our farmers and for the time spent discussing their problems.
The farmers of the U.S. have full confidence in you and the American
people love and appreciate you.

May a kind Providence ever sustain you. Our prayers are constantly for
your complete recovery and future happiness. I know they are being
answered.

As ever,
Ezra

Please don't bother to reply. Just get well. E.T.B.

22

An Offensive Is Planned

There were rumors of a split in the Cabinet, the outgrowth of a leak
concerning the Cabinet meeting chaired by the Vice President. And,
of course, stories of widespread resentment in the Midwest were
numerous.

On October 24, I announced the start of a limited purchase program
of pork products to stem the decline in hog prices. This was the same
type of program we had undertaken for beef in 1953 but not at all the
same as buying up live animals, as some of our political opponents
wanted. We would buy pork products for distribution to known out-
lets such as school lunches, the needy in institutions, and the armed
forces.

At a Cabinet discussion earlier that month, I had said we would in-
stitute such a program but not until the time was ripe because success
depended in part on good timing. Now that we had acted, however,
the opposition played up the idea that the move had been forced
upon me by the Vice President and others.

Actually, there was no split in the Cabinet— unless active discussion
is synonymous with "split." If all of us had always immediately agreed
on everything there'd have been no need for a Cabinet at all. On the
contrary there was a great deal of support.

Secretary Humphrey went out to make a speech at the annual Grange
Convention. In one of the most striking sections of his address, he said :

"The other day I received a letter from a Midwestern farmer's wife in
which she said: 'I see by the papers that you made a speech asking,
"Who wants to go back?" If you talked to some of the farmers, as well
as the farm machinery people, in this area you would very soon find out
who wants to go back. 5 "

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 279

"I have thought a great deal about what that good farm lady wrote. I
sense in it all the concern and anxiety of a farm family that is experienc-
ing the squeeze of declining selling prices and the rise in some prices of
the things they buy. I think I can understand a little of the puzzlement
and concern that beset her. Why shouldn't she and her family be shar-
ing more equitably in the country's unprecedented good times? Yet I
wonder if she and her family — and the farm families of America gener-
ally — really want to go back."

Then Humphrey, as he always liked to do, got down to specifics.

"The peak of farm prices was in February, 1951. That was during the
war in Korea. I doubt very much that anyone wants to go back to those
high prices based on war. I do not believe that this farmer's wife nor
anyone else wants that with all its heartache and suffering and fear for
every family. Yet substantially less than half of the decline in farm prices
has occurred since the end of that war. What she wants, and what this
Administration wants for her, is to share more equally with other Ameri-
cans in the abundance we as a nation are enjoying.

"She is right. But does she want to go back to the discredited program
that built up the huge price-depressing surpluses which today deny our
farmers better returns for what they produce? Does she want to go back
to a program from which today a majority of our farmers are reaping
not benefits but injury? Does she want to go back to a program that can
only perpetuate and make worse all her present difficulties? . . ."

It was, I thought, a constructive talk. The hours of discussion we had
had about this problem in Cabinet and outside had paid off. George
Humphrey had been an excellent student, and was now out preaching
and teaching.

We had been keeping in touch with field reaction in the Midwest, not
only through normal contacts, but by means of a confidential study of
the ten Midwestern states made by the Public Opinion Institute of
Princeton. Judging by this study, previewed on October 27 for Len Hall,
Humphrey, Brownell, Summerfield, the White House staff and myself,
the people were much less critical of us than some of the politicians made
out.

And the criticism was balanced in part at least by other evidence, A
Kansas farmer wrote:

Dear Secretary Benson,

This evening's paper has headlines emphasizing a farm meeting in
Minnesota where some short-sighted farmer got cheers for spouting that
"Benson must go."

280 CROSS FIRE

It must be very difficult for you to keep your equanimity, poise, and
fundamental strength to keep on doing what is right as you see it, in the
face of all this criticism of which the above mentioned incident is one
manifestation.

Please do not waver.

I ask this as one who is a farmer, wants his son to be a farmer, and is
vitally interested in long-range prosperity for farmers.

It is presumptuous for me to advise you, but I am convinced that the
bulk of our farm troubles lay with lawmakers who appeal to the special
interests of their constituents, and are fostering, not fighting, the growing
opinion that the farmer should be guaranteed a profit.

I believe that you think it is against the fundamental precepts of society
to grow food to waste for profit, especially when that profit provided in-
centive for more production, more waste, more soil depletion, and worst of
all, the insidious undermining of the stalwart principles of American Char-
acter.

Keep up the good work.

By mid-November, it was apparent, however, that some of the politi-
cal spouting was having an effect. When I met with the Vice President,
Brownell, Adams, Hauge and Jack Martin, they urged me to bring the
details of our program before Cabinet.

"I can't do it yet," I said. "We have two meetings of the National
Agricultural Commission coming up and further recommendations will
be coming at the annual meeting of the Farm Bureau and National
Grange,"

Obviously, having become alarmed, they wanted to know now just
what we planned to recommend so they could gauge its political implica-
tions. I had noticed a growing tendency in some of our people to get
anxious as soon as they had a couple of critical letters, or a visit from a
discontented Congressman,

As I was soon to learn, however, that game could be played both ways.
Early in December, Senator Bourke M. Hickenlooper of Iowa came to
my office with a scheme for a big purchase program of live hogs. Even as
I heard him out attentively, I couldn't help thinking that the two times
when people are apt to be most unstable are when they are in love and
when they are running for office.

He had managed to create quite a bit of interest in this wild proposal
among some of his fellow Midwesterners also up for re-election.

I told him I didn't think his plan was feasible but we would consider
it.

A few days later the Senator returned for my definite answer; when
I told him we couldn't go along, he was really disappointed. He said he

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 28l

might have to take his plan higher up. I told him that was certainly his
privilege.

Hickenlooper's proposal was to pay a $5-per-hundredweight subsidy
on all sows and gilts (female hogs) marketed, so as to encourage the
marketing of female stock, and thus cut down (it was hoped) future
hog numbers. Here's why it was a fantastic scheme. Farmers would get
the market price for sows and gilts plus a government check of $5 per
100 pounds for each animal marketed. This would be such a good deal
that producers would have a strong incentive to breed more and more
hogs. Instead of reducing numbers, it would end by greatly increasing
them. If this measure was approved, we could say goodby to all prospects
for a sensible farm program. The floodgates would be wide open. Pro-
ducers of cattle, poultry, and other perishables would have equal right
to want to share in the government handouts.

Senator Hickenlooper, good as his word, went to the White House.
The President was still unavailable but Sherman Adams called a confer-
ence with Vice President Nixon and members of the White House staff,
Leonard Hall and Rollis Nelson of the Republican National Committee,
and True Morse, Earl Butz, and myself from the Department. We were
to make a recommendation for the President to consider.

Just as I was leaving that day to drive to the White House, one of the
secretaries handed me a telegram that had just come in from a hog
raiser in Iowa. It read something like this: increasing news around

HERE ABOUT PROSPECT OF FIVE-DOLLAR-PER-HUNDREDWEIGHT SUBSIDY
ON SOWS AND GILTS MARKETED. CURRENT TALK AMONG HOG RAISERS

is where can i find a boar? I took the telegram to the conference.

When we arrived at the White House, we learned that Sherman
Adams had just received a telegram from the secretary of one of the
large hog organizations in Iowa which read: current talk is a five

DOLLAR SUBSIDY ON SOWS AND GILTS. IF THIS GOES THROUGH, I*LL BUILD
A RAILROAD SPUR TO MY FARM. TRUCKS WON^T BE ABLE TO HAUL THEM
FAST ENOUGH.

Now I saw how a couple of telegrams could sway opinion our way.
When Adams learned that I had received one similar to his and from
another influential source, it made a deep impression. Hickenlooper's
plan was turned down. (Not until five years later did I learn that
Earl Butz had inspired both telegrams.)

The President, meantime, had been discharged from the Fitzsimmons
Army Hospital. On November 1 1 he flew into Washington from Denver,
spent a long weekend in the White House and on Monday, November
14, he drove to his Gettysburg farm. While convalescing, he began pick-

282 GROSS FIRE

ing up the reins more and more. He held his first Cabinet meeting at
Camp David on November 22. We were all truly overjoyed to see how
well he looked. It was his first Cabinet since August. The President
was in wonderful spirits. He evidenced his gratitude through silent
prayer and spoken word for his recovery and the opportunity of meeting
again with the Cabinet In substance, he said: "You know, I didn't see
the papers for five weeks. And the first thing they showed me from the
press was an editorial in which the writer expressed surprise at how well
you fellows had carried on. Well, it was no surprise to me. I just can't
tell you how really proud I am, first of my own foresight in selecting all
of you, and second, and seriously, of how well the Cabinet has functioned
during my absence."

He said he thought the Cabinet was unique because its members had
such dedication to a particular set of principles.

To say that we were happy to see him is to say next to nothing. En-
tirely aside from our personal pleasure in having this great American
back at the helm, we needed him. I take nothing away from the Vice
President when I say he simply could not fill Eisenhower's shoes — not
then at least. It was natural under the circumstances that he should be
hesitant about exercising decisive leadership. He was not the President;
he was only sitting in for him.

But it had seemed to me that Nixon deferred too much to Sherman
Adams; sometimes you wondered whether Sherm or Dick was running
the meeting. On the one hand most major policy matters were held over
until later. But there also was a spreading tendency for Cabinet officials
to go ahead on their own — on things that before the heart attack would
have been checked out with the President. Nothing significant, but
growing hints that this was in the air.

You sensed it all through government— just the beginning of a drift
— a following of the path of least resistance — an insignificant going off
in all directions.

Take the question of highway improvement. The President had been
firmly in favor of a "pay as you go" program of interstate highway
construction. But when the Foreman's Committee on Highways met at
the Mayflower Hotel in Washington early in November, the proposal
that the highway program should be paid for out of taxes on gasoline,
tires, and other items, met strong opposition from some of the governors.
They wanted the Federal Government to foot the entire bill and borrow
to pay for it. To me the issue was so very clear: If we couldn't pay for
highways now in a period of boom, when would we ever be able to pay?

The conference went on for a week, not very successfully. The gover-

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 283

nors wanted highways, but not the job of raising taxes to pay for them.
I don't know how much difference it would have made if Eisenhower
had been available to open and address the conference, but in my
bones I felt the whole tone would have been improved.

Then during early November the question of Federal participation in
building and financing schools was discussed in Cabinet. I vigorously
opposed any extensive participation. Education should be left to the
states. The argument that some states cannot pay, I remarked, is falla-
cious. The Federal Government might be justified, I argued, in giving
a little immediate aid to take up the slack in building of schools due to
the war. But we should not go beyond this. Yet it seemed obvious
that some were prepared to go a long way. Again, I don't know how
much difference Eisenhower's presence would have made, but I do
know I surely missed his comments.

Early in December a second Cabinet meeting was held at Camp
David, this time with agriculture the major item for discussion.

We had expected to go by helicopter, but at 6:30 that morning I
received a telephone call from the White House that the helicopter trip
had been canceled because of weather. Going immediately to the Depart-
ment, I picked up four members of my staff and we drove to Camp
David, arriving there at 8:40 for the scheduled 9 o'clock Cabinet meet-
ing. Our charts and other props were ready when the President arrived.
We took an hour and ten minutes explaining the proposed Farm
Program to the President and the Cabinet.

We had been working with the public relations men and had prepared
a comprehensive plan of how the program could be explained and sold
to the people.

We proposed to take the offensive politically, to show the country
why a farm recession existed, that Democratic policies were responsible.
We would show Republicans, especially from Midwest farm states, that
the Administration's program could be made a political asset. Prominent
GOP Senators and Congressmen who had advocated farm policy
changes would be brought up to date on the Administration's tactics
and given ammunition to take the offensive.

The Secretary and Assistant Secretaries would go into critical farm
areas for conferences with farmers and agricultural leaders. The Secre-
tary would urge farmers to write him personally. Every farmer who
wrote would receive a personal reply. A special correspondence group
would be set up in the Department to assure that farmers would get
such a reply signed by the Secretary.

284 CROSS FIRE

The White House staff, with the assistance of the Republican Na-
tional Committee, would secure prominent speakers, including GOP
Senators and Congressmen, to confront the Democrats nationally with
the fact that they were responsible for present farm troubles. The
Republican National Committee would obtain a top-flight political
writer to prepare hard-hitting, aggressive material for touring speakers
selected by the White House staff and the Committee.

This was the program for now, prior to the presentation of our
legislative recommendations. It was to be supplemented by longer range
measures. When Congress reconvened, a GOP caucus would be called
to unify opinion on the farm problem. A concise statement would be
distributed to Congress — a positive, concrete document, taking into
consideration improvements, defects, future plans and expected results.

A simple statement of the farm problem — how it occurred, who was
responsible, and what the Administration had done and was doing to
solve it — should be prepared and widely distributed. If possible a film
using both live action and animation would be made for distribution
throughout the farm belt and for TV usage.

Discussion of these recommendations ran for about an hour and 15
minutes. The program won general acceptance, and the President
seemed highly pleased that we were attacking the problem from many
sides.

On December 12 and 13, we had two full days of meetings with the
National Agricultural Advisory Commission, days spent in reviewing
again many of the items previously considered for strengthening the
farm program. A meeting with the legislative leaders at the White
House in which we presented our tentative proposals for the farm
program proved fruitful— so much so that I felt truly encouraged.

It was my strong recommendation that the message on agriculture be
the first special message to go to the Congress following the President's
State of the Union Presentation. Shortly before the year's end it was
tentatively agreed that this should be done. The message was scheduled
for January 9.

^s k *953> now near the end of 1955 time was slipping away all too
swiftly. We were hard pressed to find even a few hours to spend together
as a family. On the Wednesday, four days before Christmas, I suddenly
put on my hat and coat, walked out of the office in mid-afternoon and
went home. We had an early meal and then we all got into the family
car and drove around downtown viewing the festive store windows and
the shoppers and the crowded walks. The bells of the Salvation Army

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 285

collection rang out insistently and cheery "Thank you's" emanated
from the doll booths operated by some of the radio stations to make
Christmas brighter for thousands of little people. We left the business
area, drove past the Pageant of Peace on the ellipse back of the
White House and gazed up at the 65-foot Christmas tree standing
proudly as though to say "Look at me, a symbol of peace and joy. And
know that peace is possible to men of good will."

Two days later I had my annual check-up at Walter Reed — the
President always insisted on that. My doctor said, as he had before,
"Slow down, you're hitting it too hard — try to get away for a few days
about four times a year — and I mean away, away from telephones and
conferences and decisions."

It was 10 o'clock in the morning of Christmas Eve when the doctors
discharged me from the hospital. With the medical warning as my
excuse, I played hookey all day — spent the entire afternoon relaxing at
home and in the evening, after a turkey dinner, a round of carols and
some Christmas reading, Flora and I played Santa Claus. It seemed we
had hardly got to sleep when eleven-year-old Beth crawled into bed with
us. It was 2 a.m. She tried to convince us that it was time to get up to
open the gifts. We managed to get Beth and ourselves back to sleep; but
at 5:00 a.m., she employed her wiles even more persuasively. This
time we permitted her to take just a peek at the tree and its treasures.
By 7:00 o'clock everybody was up.

We watched the children's faces, as they went to the chairs and stock-
ings to find their gifts. Later we went to Sunday school together, ate a
huge Christmas dinner and afterward everyone gathered around and
sang hymns and carols until the house fairly rang with gladness and
gratitude.

That afternoon we went to Sacrament meeting, where Reed was one
of the two speakers and Beverly sang two solo numbers. We talked long-
distance with Barbara and Bob, and Mark and Lela.

In the evening, as was often the case, a great many young people,
members of the Church, came to our home for a regular gathering we
call "fireside." They filled the downstairs to overflowing so that many
were sitting on the floor. Beverly, Bonnie, and Beth sang two very-
lovely Christmas trios and I had the great pleasure of making a little talk
about the meaning of Christmas.

Then after fireside was over and our young friends had departed, we
gathered our little clan together for family prayer and a rather starry-
eyed good night.

286 CROSS FIRE

It was a wonderful day, a glorious day. Christmas is, indeed, the best
time of the year.

During most of the next week I continued to relax at home, visiting,
reading, listening to music. On New Year's Eve we went to the Wash-
ington Ward Chapel. Beverly gave a lovely organ recital. And as we
went home that night, I thought:

This year has been a glorious one in many ways. The Lord has blessed
us richly. Never have I had more to be grateful for and I realize it more
and more. Never before have I been so completely convinced of the
truth of the Gospel, the need for it in the world and the rich blessings
which flow to those who strive to live it.

For all this, I expressed my deepest thanks.

This was the year in which Nikita Khrushchev,
the shrewdest buffoon of modern times, vilified
Stalin, now three years dead, publicly repudiating
his cruelties — only to trample on the Hungarian
freedom fighters with typical Stalinist brutality.

The cold war intensified.

Egypt seized the Suez Canal; Israel, France,
and Britain invaded Egypt briefly before a cease'
fire was arranged.

In the U.S. national income reached $400,000,-
000,000 and the President made a fateful politi-
cal decision.

In agriculture new terms became popular
and widely known: Soil Bank — Acreage Reserve
— Conservation Reserve — Rural Development.
And two other members of the Benson family
joined in trying their voices at political campaign-
ing.

1956

23

"Use the Surplus to Use Up the Surplus"

As 1956 began we found ourselves riding the same merry-go-round as in
the period just before the President sent up his special message on
agriculture in January 1954: Cabinet presentations, meetings with legis-
lative leaders, conferences with the National Agricultural Advisory Com-
mission, with farm organization leaders and individual farmers. Again,
we had invited farmers everywhere in the land to send us their sugges-
tions, and again many, many letters poured in.

We had a series of informal breakfasts at the Congressional Hotel
with key Republican Senators and Representatives to give them a pre-
view of the new phases of the program. On January 5, at lunch, I tried
to get Senator Ellender, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agri-
culture and Forestry, to join Senator Aiken in recommending a bill
covering our proposals, but he refused.

That same afternoon, True Morse and I, carrying the latest drafts of
the farm message in our briefcases, boarded an Army Convair with Dr.
Gabriel Hauge and Fred Seaton of the White House staff for Key West,
Florida, where the President was vacationing. All the way to Key West
we worked on the message, getting it in the best possible shape, so that
we could go over it in detail with the President next day. We were still
revising late that night. At 8 o'clock next morning we met again for
further checking, comparing our latest draft with one which the Presi-
dent had reviewed and on which he had made comments.

At about 9 a.m. True, Gabe, Fred, and I entered the President's
Little White House office. The next two hours and a half we spent with
him and Jim Hagerty, going over the message paragraph by paragraph.

The President seemed to like our product. When we discussed his

290 CROSS FIRE

participation in selling it, he immediately agreed to make special men-
tion of the program in his news conference before leaving Key West.
What's more, he said, he would go on TV later if necessary.

Following this I walked with him to his residence. He talked very
frankly about his health and the splendid recovery he was making. He
made it clear, however, that a portion of his heart had been damaged,
and it would probably never be quite the same as before the attack.
Nevertheless, he said, "Ezra, you don't know how eager I am to get back
into the full swing of things again,"

The special message on agriculture was long, about 8000 words.

"In the past three years," the message said, "we have found outlets
for commodities in a value of more than four billion dollars — far more
than in any comparable period in recent history. But these disposal efforts
have not been able to keep pace with the problem. Other consequences
of past farm programs have been no less damaging. Both at home and
abroad, markets have been lost. Foreign farm production has been in-
creased. American exports have declined. Foreign products have been
attracted to our shores.

"The Agricultural Act of 1954 brought realism into the use of the
essential tool of price supports. It applied the principle of price flexibility
to help keep commodity supplies in balance with markets. For two
reasons, the 1954 law has not yet been able to make its potential contri-
bution to solving our farm troubles. First, the law began to take hold only
with the harvests of 1955; it has not yet had the opportunity to be effec-
tive. Second, the operation of the new law is smothered under surpluses
amassed by the old program."

The message made nine recommendations for Congressional action:

A Soil Bank to help get production and demand in balance and
to promote the basic conservation job so vital to our national future.

An expanded surplus disposal program. This would complement
the Soil Bank by moving CCC stocks out the front door while the
Soil Bank reduced what came in the back door.

Strengthened commodity programs for individual products, such
as corn, wheat, cotton, rice, and dairy products.

A dollar limit on the amount of price supports paid to any
individual or farm if the Congress should see fit to enact it. This
would enable our family farms to compete better with huge corpo-
ration-type units.

A Rural Development Program to open wider the doors of op-

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 29I

portunity for a million and a half farm families with incomes of
less than $1000 a year.

A Great Plains Program to help promote a more stable economy
in the agricultural empire between the prairies and the Rocky
Mountains.

Sharply increased research to help find new crops, new markets,
and new uses for our agricultural abundance.

Expanded and strengthened credit facilities, which would aid in
the transition from war to peace and be of particular help to
veterans just getting started.

Refunding of the Federal gasoline tax for purchases of gasoline
used on farms.

These nine points offered no nostrums or panaceas, but rather a
point by point logical attack on our most urgent problem, the surplus.

The heart of the program was the Soil Bank.

The first time I ever heard the name "soil bank," a very interesting
term by the way, was from the lips of a fanner out in Illinois. Whether
he originated it or not, I've no way of knowing.

The Soil Bank had two parts. Part one we called the "Acreage
Reserve." This was a short-range program designed to bring about a
voluntary cut in production of the crops then in greatest surplus — wheat,
cotton, corn, and rice.

If a farmer had an allotment of 100 acres of wheat, for example, he
might choose to plant only 80 acres. The other 20 he would place in the
Acreage Reserve, agreeing not to harvest any crops on them or even to
use them for grazing. For placing this land in the Reserve, the farmer
would receive a certificate, the value of which would be high enough
to make participation in the program worthwhile. This certificate he
could present to the Commodity Credit Corporation either for payment
in cash or for an equivalent number of bushels of wheat. The Acreage
Reserve, I repeat, was a short-term emergency program — on the order
of a one-shot effort — intended to hit the surplus a mighty blow.

The second part of the Soil Bank was the "Conservation Reserve."
This, too, was voluntary but a longer-range program. Farmers would be
asked to contract with the government to shift land out of cultivated
crops into forage or trees, and, where feasible, to ponds and reservoirs.
Any farmer would be eligible to participate. He would be paid a fair
share of the cost of establishing the forage or tree cover, up to a specified
maximum amount that would vary with different regions. Further, as
the farmer reorganizes his farm along these soil conserving lines, we

2g2 CROSS FIRE

recommended that the government provide annual payments related to
the length of time needed to establish the new use of the land. Whereas
the Acreage Reserve was expected to run for three or four years, con-
tracts under the Conservation Reserve could be for as many as fifteen
years.

We needed a program that would come to grips with the surplus
immediately — during 1956. Prompdy enacted, the Soil Bank might do
the trick. The Acreage Reserve might take roughly 20- to 25,000,000
acres of harvested cropland out of production in a range about as
follows:

Wheat 12,000,000 to 15,000,000 acres

Cotton 3,000,000 to 5,000,000 acres

Corn 4,000,000 to 6,000,000 acres

Rice 300,000 acres

Under the Conservation Reserve, we hoped to shift about 25,000,000
additional acres from cropland to forage, trees, or water storage, taking
some of our less productive land out of current use and improving it for
long-range needs.

Altogether, then, the Soil Bank could take out of production from
45,000,000 to 50,000,000 acres, or about one-eighth of our then used
cropland. On this basis we could expect a substantial reduction in crop
output beginning in 1956, especially output of surplus commodities.
Within three years or so, through the Soil Bank and surplus disposal
efforts, we could hope to bring carryovers of wheat, corn, cotton, and
rice down to normal levels, where they would not depress the market,
while at the same time maintaining and increasing farm income.

Of course, the Soil Bank would be costly, especially the Acreage
Reserve; but if it worked it would be much less expensive over-all than
the existing unsuccessful efforts to support farm prices and control
production. And it had the priceless advantage of seeming to be workable.

Here's how it would pay dividends. The Soil Bank could reduce by
many millions of dollars the annual storage costs on government held
surpluses. Storage costs were then running about a million dollars a day.
At that rate, in about 8 years the carrying costs on a bushel of wheat
would equal the value of the wheat. If, through this program, we could
work off 200,000,000 bushels of wheat and 2,000,000 bales of cotton
each year for three years, the savings in carrying costs alone on Com-
modity Credit Corporation inventory would be about $400,000,000.

We thought the cost of the Acreage Reserve, in payments to farmers,
might average per acre about as follows:

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH

EISENHOWER

Cotton

$45

Wheat

15

Corn

3i

Rice

50

293

The total annual cost of the Acreage Reserve, assuming the above
levels of payment, would be from $450- to $650,000,000. The Reserve
would thus go part way toward paying for itself in reduced storage costs
alone.

But this would be only part of the benefits. The scope of the Acreage
Reserve could be impressive. Applied to wheat, cotton, corn, and rice
on the scale contemplated, it could create a place in the market for
more than a billion dollars worth of Commodity Credit Corporation
stocks in a year's time.

We would use the surplus to use up the surplus.

Farmers would be paid for their participation in the Acreage Reserve
either in surplus commodities or in cash. If they took payment in surplus
commodities the CCC stocks would be correspondingly reduced. If they
took payment in cash, CCC would have the opportunity to sell some of
its holdings into the market.

Thus, the surpluses would begin to diminish. Commodities lying un-
used in stockpiles and in danger of deterioration, would be consumed.

More than that, the plan in theory offered a kind of two-for-one
return. Here is a rough example. Go back again to our farmer who put
20 wheat acres into the reserve. Suppose that these acres normally
produced 350 bushels and that the net return, after paying production
expenses, was equal to 175 bushels. The farmer would receive in com-
pensation his normal net return of 175 bushels from CCC surplus stocks
or its cash equivalent. But note that the slack in production was 350
bushels, not just 175. In return for the cost equivalent of 175 bushels
of wheat, we would cut back the potential wheat supply by 350 bushels.

Thus, using the surplus to use up the surplus could bring a two-for-
one return.

But the biggest boon of all, we hoped, would be an upsurge in farm
prices and income due to a new buoyancy in the market place. The sur-
pluses we were holding had a smothering effect on market prices. They
were lying on the market like a soggy blanket, causing stagnation — a
wait-and-see attitude — a fear to move ahead with energy and zest.

Our technicians estimated that farm prices right then in 1956 might
have been as much as 10 per cent higher if we had not had the sur-
pluses.

294 CROSS FIRE

They estimated further that existing surpluses had reduced farm in-
come by the staggering sum of more than $2,000,000,000 in 1955. With-
out the surpluses, in other words, net farm income in 1955 might have
been as much as 20 per cent higher.

Of course the full effect of the new program on surpluses of wheat,
cotton, corn, and rice would not be felt immediately. Certainly we would
not expect the Soil Bank to raise incomes a full 20 per cent in 1956. It
would take time.

But if we could stimulate that new buoyancy in the market place it
would be reflected rather promptly in prices and incomes. The very
announcement of the program had already been followed by evidence
of some strengthening in the markets.

What I have been saying about the Acreage Reserve applied also to
the Conservation Reserve. The cost of this part of the Soil Bank was
expected to be perhaps $350,000,000. As in the case of the Acreage
Reserve, the removal of these acres from harvested crops — and the
provision that they should not be grazed for a number of years — would
strengthen markets.

In theory the Soil Bank, and especially the Acreage Reserve, was just
about the most attractive proposal for licking the surplus anybody had
yet devised. Still, I could not get as enthusiastic about it as some of my
staff. Maybe just the idea of paying farmers for not producing — even
as a one-shot emergency measure — outraged my sensibilities. The only
real justification was that the government itself had been so largely
responsible for the mess farmers were in. The Conservation Reserve was
different. It required the farmer to adopt conservation practices. How-
ever, when I thought of what the Soil Bank might do— if all went ac-
cording to plan — certainly it deserved a chance.

Unfortunately, the Soil Bank idea very quickly ran up its own surplus
— of opponents.

Two other features of the President's recommendations merit special
attention: the Rural Development Program and the Great Plains Pro-
gram.

A little over two-fifths of the U.S. farms were producing 90 per cent
of the farm products marketed. Nearly three-fifths were producing only
10 per cent of the marketings.

Some 1,500,000 farm families — more than one-fourth of the total as
of the 1949 census— had total incomes at that time of less than $1000,

In virtually every state there were, and are, farms just a short distance
apart illustrating this contrast. This is especially true of the South. I had

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 295

seen it often on my trips around the country. On one farm you'd see a
beautiful new car in the driveway and glimpse another equally shiny
model in the garage. In the field adjoining the house might be a Piper
Cub and in the barn a pair of prize bulls. The fields and pastures would
be in excellent condition and there would be a whole arsenal of farm
machinery and equipment to work the land. The farmhouse might be
a ranch-style structure surrounded by a prettily landscaped yard. You
often saw air conditioners in several rooms, a tremendous food freezer
and other equipment in a utility room, and a modern kitchen that would
delight the eyes and heart of almost any city housewife.

But off on a side road a little way down the highway, there is another
farm. The house is a two-room shack surrounded by a sea of mud. The
walk leading to the shack consists of several planks, the steps to the door-
way are two packing boxes. There are a couple of chairs in one room,
plus a bench and some more packing boxes. There is one lone electric
light bulb attached to a cord hanging from the ceiling. In one corner
on a makeshift table is an electric hot plate which plugs into a double
socket just above the electric light bulb. This hot plate and the bulb are
the only pieces of modern equipment in the place. This farmer is getting
along by working part-time on neighboring farms and cultivating a few
acres of his own. There are no livestock or poultry anywhere on the
place. Maybe he tried to keep a few chickens during the past year, but
for one reason or another he had given up on that.

These pictures are not overdrawn. I have seen even greater contrasts.

While these low-income farmers could be found in every state, and
indeed in almost every community, they were concentrated in the
Southeast, the Appalachians, the cutover region of the Northern Lake
States, and scattered sections of the Far West and the Intermountain
region. In these rural areas of low income, less than half the adult popu-
lation had completed eight years of schooling and only one adult in nine
had had a high school education. The people were not trained to do
anything but farm and they lacked the resources and even the know how
to do a good job of that.

The President had placed before the Congress several recommenda-
tions to launch a program for these low-income farmers, but Congress
had ignored most of them. Strangely enough, some of the Congressmen
who liked to give the impression that they had bled and died for the
small farmer, showed no interest at all in this program to help the low-
income segment of our farm population.

On the basis of an exhaustive study of the whole low-income problem
we had issued in April 1955 a report called, "Development of Agricul-

296 CROSS FIRE

ture's Human Resources." It was a plan of action, fitted to the needs
both of those who wished to remain in agriculture and those who
wanted to make their living principally by off -farm work.

The recommended program included vocational training not only
for agriculture, but also for a wide range of other opportunities; research
to get at the roots of the problems and extension work to help correct
them; increased availability of agricultural credit; information regard-
ing off-farm employment; and a program to speed industrialization, and
hence provide job opportunities in rural areas.

We called this whole operation the "Rural Development Program."
It was to be cooperative in every sense, involving public and private
groups at the local, state, and Federal level. The accent was on youth.
Now we were pressing the Congress to support this program, to give it
a real chance to work.

The President also proposed a constructive conservation program for
the Great Plains, an area in the Western states once embraced in the
"Dust Bowl." Normally, this vast region produced 60 per cent of our
wheat and 35 per cent of our cattle. Its 17,000,000 people lived on 37
per cent of our nation's land area.

Much of the Great Plains was in the drought area. The area in general
was subject to severe climatic variations which periodically produced
widespread suffering and heavy economic losses.

While many farmers and ranchers in the region had participated in
land-use programs with the cooperation of the USDA, the land-grant
colleges, and other local, state, and national organizations, a long-range
program needed to be developed. It had to be a program adapted to
local conditions by the people in the area with appropriate assistance
from their local, state, and Federal governments.

A suitable program for the Great Plains was already largely authorized,
but additional funds were needed. The President urged intensified re-
search on water conservation and wind-erosion control, expanded studies
on the economic problems of adapting farming to the hazardous condi-
tions of Great Plains agriculture, a speeding up of soil surveys and
technical assistance, increased payments to state extension services for
educational work, and provision for additional production and subsist-
ence loans by the Fanners Home Administration.

These were the farm proposals for 1956. To me they had so much
merit, I hoped they would command bipartisan support and win. I be-
lieved this could happen if the discussion could only be focused mainly
on economics and as little as practicable on politics.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 297

The Ever-normal Doghouse

Viewed purely as an economic idea, I don't see how any thinking person
could prefer the idea of rigid price support to the idea of flexible price
support. If we could have put it to an open-minded Congress to choose
which idea was better, there would have been no real conflict whatso-
ever. The fundamental economics of the farm issue are relatively simple.
It is politics that complicates the matter.

The President had said he and I would learn about politics together,
and I believed we were.

The general reaction to the message seemed distinctly favorable.

On January 12, at 9:30 a.m. I appeared before the Senate Agricul-
ture Committee. The hearings had to be moved to a larger room, as the
Committee Room was not able to accommodate the crowd. It took
about 35 minutes to read a formal statement but the questioning con-
tinued until 1 130. On the whole it was a very constructive hearing, one
that raised my hopes high that we might indeed get strong bipartisan
support of the President's recommendations.

Later that month some of my immediate staff joined me in giving
two dinners; one for all members of the House Agricultural Committee
and the Subcommittee on Agricultural Appropriations; the other for the
corresponding committees of the Senate.

The dinner with the Senators was excellent, but that with the House
members, though profitable over-all, was marred by the performance of
Harold D. Cooley. Called on for a two-minute statement, he embarked
on a fifteen-minute political speech.

Cross currents sweep agriculture from many directions. That is why it
is fallacious to talk about "the farmer," as though he is a single, unique
type. In Iowa, where income from hogs makes or breaks the year for
most farmers, declining hog prices were fully reflected in a poll in Wal-
lace's Farmer at the end of 1955. Asked whether I was doing a good,
fair, or poor job, the answers in this poll ran:

Good 7 per cent

Fair 28 per cent

Poor 48 per cent

Not sure 17 per cent

On the other hand, a poll by Farm Management magazine of 50,000
Western farmers and ranchers showed that two out of three thought we
were doing a good job.

298 CROSS FIRE

The Midwest sentiment was most dramatically evidenced, however,
by an event on January 25, 1956. On that morning, 19 Republican
Congressmen from the Midwest presented themselves at my office. They
came to demand, not request, that I price support live hogs at $20.00
a hundred pounds. Ben Jensen of Iowa was the principal spokesman,
backed up by H. R. Gross^ also of Iowa, and Harold O. Lovre of South
Dakota.

Immediate action, they said, was the only course that would forestall
an uprising in the Corn Belt. Patiently I repeated what I must have
said fifty times before: we were already buying pork for school lunch
and other known outlets. We could not put the government into the
hog business — this would cause more long-range trouble than any short-
term good it might do.

I sympathized with the Congressmen. Hog producers were hurt.
Prices had dropped to as low as $10 a hundred pounds. Producers
threatened to take it out on their representatives.

The main hog-producing area, stretching east-west from Ohio to
Nebraska and reaching its highest concentration in Iowa, is historically
and normally Republican country; but the Republican margin is thin
in spots. When farm prices fell during the thirties, the hog belt swung
Democratic. In 1948, a combination of weakened farm prices and
vigorous campaigning again turned it Democratic, providing the mar-
gin for Truman's victory.

There's a deep-seated theory in the Midwest that farmers "vote
their pocketbooks " And hogs are the biggest source of farm income in
Iowa and a heavy source in other states. That whether farmers really
vote their pocketbooks was not clearly established cut no ice. Many of
the politicians had no intention of putting them to the test.

Back in the fall of 1955, therefore, with Midwestern farm pocket-
books shrinking, Republican Congressmen and Senators were worried.

For my part, I knew that with time and wise government assistance,
farmers themselves would correct the imbalance by breeding fewer sows,
raising fewer pigs, and marketing less pork. This normal process of ad-
justment takes approximately a year to make itself felt.

To help ease the adjustment, we were following the tested procedures
that had worked so well in the cattle crisis of 1953; purchase of pork
for the school lunch program; vigorous market promotion, and addi-
tional credit to tide hard-pressed producers over. But these 19 Repub-
lican Congressmen wanted quicker-acting remedies: price supports for
live hogs and premiums for marketing light-weight hogs.

Their leader, Representative Jensen, pounded the desk and glared.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 299

"If you don't put supports under hogs, not one of us will return to Con-
gress next year/'

I'm always glad I didn't blurt out what I thought. I was tired and
harried and Jensen was proving a thorn in my side. It was on the tip of
my tongue to say, "I can think of worse things than your defeat." But I
bit my tongue and just thought it.

These men were so panicky about the possibility they would not be
re-elected that they seemed willing to resort to any unsound program
if it had political appeal.

"We're not asking, we're demanding that you take action," Jensen
repeated. "If you don't, we're going to the White House."

Everybody was going to the White House. "Gentlemen," I responded,
"I'm sorry, but you will have to go. I do not intend to put supports un-
der live hogs. My predecessors attempted this sort of thing on various
perishables and it resulted in a fiasco. It hurt markets, prevented adjust-
ment and caused hundreds of millions of dollars to be wasted. I will
not do it. I will never support a program which I feel is economically
unsound, not good for our farmers and unfair to all of our people."

The Congressmen were, depending on the individual, disappointed,
baffled, and chagrined. Some were visibly angry.

They left my office and went to the reception room, where newsmen
were waiting.

I looked at an inscription on my desk: Oh, God, give us men with
a mandate higher than the ballot box. The meeting had been well-
publicized. The stories the Congressmen gave out were moderate in tone,
but revealed a determination not to give up. They didn't give up,
either. They kept pressure on me to take administrative action and they
tried unsuccessfully to pass legislation. But they didn't go in a body to
the White House.

Within a matter of hours phone calls began coming in from the Corn
Belt. Some of these calls reached me. "Is it true that you plan to support
hogs at $20?"

"Why are you asking?"

"Well, I just heard it rumored and I wondered if there was anything
to it?"

"No, there's nothing to it — but suppose there was, what would you
do?"

"I'd breed more sows, of course."

The afternoon after the 19 Congressmen called on me, Flora and I
left Washington with Congressman John P. Saylor in a small two-

300 CROSS FIRE

motored airplane for Johnstown, Pennsylvania. I don't know when I
. have ever enjoyed the beauties of flying more. We were well above the
billowy white clouds and as we neared Johnstown with the sun setting
in an array of glorious color and a full moon coming up on our right,
I tell you it was a glorious sight.

This speech had been scheduled as a talk to a Republican audience.
Not until I took a seat at the speakers table in the Johnstown audito-
rium did I learn that the meeting was sponsored by the local Chamber
of Commerce and half of the audience were Democrats.

The entire dinner period I spent revising my remarks, finishing just
in time to go on the air. With a sigh of relief some 30 minutes later, I
concluded the talk. As revised it had passed muster.

Immediately afterward, we were driven with police escort to TV
station WAR on the mountain above the city. Edward R. Murrow was
presenting one of his "See It Now" programs. The subject was the
farm problem. He had invited me to view the show and make a few
comments at the end.

The show reached quite an emotional pitch. But it left viewers with
the impression that the Administration's policies were forcing tremen-
dous numbers of farmers off the land. One major sequence showed an
Iowa family selling out at auction, with one scene built around the sale
of their baby carriage.

As the distortions grew, I got madder and madder. The thing may
have been good drama but unless I knew nothing at all about the farm
situation, it certainly was not a true documentary. At the very end of
the hour, Murrow gave me a few minutes to comment. How can you
counteract in five minutes the effect of a professionally planned and
painstakingly developed 55 minute television production? I was so angry
I had to fight my feelings when I should have been giving full attention
to tearing the show apart.

The next day I asked for time to reply at length. Time was set
aside on February 23, for this purpose.

Meantime, we did some investigating. The touching sequence about
the baby carriage— there was no baby; the children were all grown.
The poignant scene showing the family's selling out and moving off the
farm— it turned out that this farmer signed the place over to his
brother; he and his family drove out to California in a new Pontiac.

Good drama, yes. But if what we were to see in "See It Now" was
truth, no.

Now comes a really tragi-comic blunder.

According to plan, in November and December, I had publicly

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 3OI

urged farmers and other interested persons to send me their suggestions
on what further improvemtnts needed to be made in the farm programs.

Letters came pouring in by the hundreds. To handle them we set up
a pool of secretaries under staff direction to read, classify, and sort the
mail into categories for an appropriate personal or form acknowledg-
ment over my signature.

My entire staff worked so intensely for such long hours that errors
were inevitable. One, in particular, backfired. The editor of Harper's
Magazine was John Fischer. In the 1930s he had been Information
Chief of what is now the Farmers Home Administration. Fischer, who
retained an interest in agricultural affairs, delivered himself of a scathing
denunciation of farmers in the December 1955 issue of Harper's, under
the title "The Country Slickers Take Us Again."

"Our pampered tyrant, the American farmer," the piece began, "is
about to get his boots licked again by both political parties."

It continued: "The record of recent elections indicates that the
farmer is generally eager to sell his vote to the highest bidder . . .
When any hog keeps his jowls in the trough long enough, he gets to
thinking he owns the trough . . . Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft
Benson has made a few gingerly efforts to bring a little sense back into
our farm economy."

The editorial, while vituperative, did make some good points about
the cost of the farm problem. But it was all wrong in blaming farmers
for the sins of the politicians.

Fischer sent us a copy of the editorial and a letter inviting my com-
ments.

These, arriving with a batch of other mail, was routed to one of the
secretaries. Finding the pungent editorial highly interesting, she wrote
on it "This is excellent," thus marking it for a warm acknowledgment.

The following letter was prepared.

I have read the article by John Fischer in the December issue of Harper's
with a great deal of interest. It is excellent.

Ezra T. Benson
Secretary of Agriculture
Washington, D.C.

What happened immediately thereafter I don't precisely know. These
letters were to be double-checked by a staff member. Possibly in this
instance, the letter was placed in a staff members "in-coming" box and
through some mischance being inadvertently transferred to his "out-
going" box, was duly picked up as approved, signed as routine mail,
and dispatched.

302 CROSS FIRE

On receiving this missive, Fischer probably could hardly believe his
eyes. Here was a Secretary of Agriculture agreeing with him that farm-
ers were greedy, irresponsible feeders at the public trough.

This was much too good a scoop for an old information man to pass
by. Fischer published the letter in the February Harper's (appearing in
January) and the screams (Democrats, gleeful; Republicans, enraged)
on Capitol Hill rose many decibels too high for comfort.

Once more my critics wanted heads to roll in the USD A — and mine,
like Abou ben Adhem's, led all the rest. My friends were convinced
that this was all the result of dirty work by some holdover Democrat. It
was not. It was just a boner.

Of course, I had once more to march up Capitol Hill to explain to
an incredulous Congressional Committee how such a blunder could
have been made.

There was nothing for it but to make a clean breast of the whole af-
fair. Having done this, I found that the "indiscretion" was soon for-
given if not forgotten. My heart went out to the poor secretary, because
I'm sure the incident was much harder on her than on anyone else.

A letter addressed to the editor of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch was
sent to me without comment.

"When Henry Wallace was Secretary of Agriculture," it began, "and
everybody jumped on him, we all thought it was all poor Henry's fault.
More recent^ we thought Charles Brannan was the cause of our agri-
cultural troubles, so we blamed poor Charlie. But now that poor uncle
Ezra Taft Benson is getting it from all sides, we have about decided that
the Secretary of Agriculture is destined always to live in an ever-normal
doghouse."

My reaction was: Brother, amen.

24

How to Make Up Your Mind

If January proved to be rough, February and March forced us to be
both rough and ready.

On Monday, February 13, a special Cabinet meeting was held and a
good deal of discussion went on about whether the President should
sign or veto the natural gas bill. While I hadn't followed the bill closely,
I approved of its general principles; unfortunately, however, certain un-
savory circumstances were associated with its passage. The President
decided to veto it, making it plain that his decision was based not so
much on the bill itself as the conditions of its passage. To me, it was the
right decision. We expected, however, that it would produce a real
shock in the Senate and lose us some badly needed support on the farm
bill.

Next day I started on tour. Again, I had decided to accept as many
speech dates as possible — bunching them on short trips — so as to get out
the story, without neglecting the key job of keeping in very close touch
with the legislation.

To St. Paul, to San Francisco, to Des Moines, and returning, we
went to work on our answer to Murrow. This taught us the truth about
the cobbler sticking to his last. We had three weeks to put it together,
and didn't start in earnest until about ten days or a week before. Then,
in our haste, too many persons got into the act. We found ourselves
attempting to rival the Murrow show when we should have been con-
tent to "sing something simple." The upshot was that we tried to cram
too much into the available time; and as we found ourselves less and less
equipped to make a presentation comparable to Murrow's, we began
revising furiously. The show, in fact, was being revised in the studio
right up to the time we came on the air. Assistant Secretary Earl Butz

304 CROSS FIRE

made a presentation with charts and graphs showing farm income, but
in the general snafu at the last minute CBS informed us we had to cut
four minutes off the program. So Earl with his heavy artillery ended up
on the cutting room floor. The crowning blow of the evening came
when the teleprompter broke down in the middle of my statement,
leaving me the equally disconcerting alternative of adapting my speech
to the eccentricities of the teleprompter or taking off in a lengthy, un-
charted, and unplanned ad lib.

It wasn't exactly a turkey, but it completely convinced me I was no
TV star,

I believe it was around this time, too, that the potato pickets moved
in.

The price of potatoes was down, due to a temporary oversupply.
Prices for eastern producers were particularly low. Some farm women
from Long Island came to the Department of Agriculture, demanding
aid. Though they had no constructive proposal to offer, yet they insisted
they would not go home until they had help. Maintaining that their
husbands were busy and could not come to Washington, they were
shouldering this responsibility themselves. They picketed the Depart-
ment for a day or two, marching with signs before the Administration
Building, and made life miserable for Earl Butz before they finally folded
up their tents and stole away.

Meantime, whatever lingering hopes we had for fairly smooth Con-
gressional sailing on the 1956 program broke up against the rocks of the
House Agricultural Committee on February 21.

The day began with a White House breakfast, and then from 10 a.m.
to 5 p.m. with an hour and a half out for lunch I testified before the
Committee on the pending legislation. It was the most disappointing and
in fact depressing hearing I had yet witnessed before any Congressional
committee. Approximately 5 of the 5^2 hours I was on the stand were
taken up by the Chairman, Congressman Cooley, and by the ranking
majority leader, Congressman W. H. Poage of Texas. Only two other
members of the 30-man committee were given any time at all for ques-
tions or comments. Most of the Committee seemed to be disgusted.
So were many of the spectators. The Chairman even went to the point
of inviting a group from the Farmers Union to serve as a cheering
section for his political speeches. Very little of a constructive nature was
accomplished through this hearing.

In his syndicated column Roscoe Drummond rapped the Chairman

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 305

for his discourtesy. He quoted the remark of an English exchange student
from Oxford University who, after witnessing the hearing, had remarked,
"In England, we treat our prisoners with more respect than this Com-
mittee extended to a member of the United States Cabinet."

But then a really great day came — Wednesday, February 29, 1956.
The President had scheduled a press conference for that morning.

Everybody knew he was going to answer the big question that was on
everybody's mind : Would he or wouldn't he? Would he run for another
term or, because of his heart attack, retire to his Gettysburg farm?

More than three hundred reporters crowded into the Executive Of-
fices. The President arrived about 10:30, looking serious.

With the flair for the dramatic which most Presidents either possess
or seem to acquire, Eisenhower dawdled along, touching on several sub-
jects not in the least related to the big one. He started out with a plea
for support of the Red Cross Drive. Then he expressed his gratification
at the visit of Italy's President Gronchi, who had just arrived in Wash-
ington. He took a swipe at the rigid price supports in the proposed
Senate farm bill. He brought up the question of the Upper Colorado
River Basin project, then being discussed in the House. The President
could be quite a tease. He knew the reporters were all muttering under
their breaths. "Come on, spill it! Stop stalling! Let's have it! Let's have
it!!"

"Now, my next announcement," he said, "involves something more
personal, but I think it will be of interest to you because you have asked
me so many questions about it.

C T have promised this body that when I reached a decision as to my
own attitude toward my own personal future, I would let you know as
soon as I reached such a decision. Now I have reached a decision. But I
have found, as I did so, that there were so many factors and con-
siderations involved that I saw the answer could not be expressed just
in the simple terms of yes and no. Some full explanation to the American
people is not only necessary, but I would never consent to go before
them unless I were assured that they did understand these things, these
influences, these possibilities."

Oh, no! the reporters said to themselves, don't hold off like this. Is
it yes, or no?

"Moreover," the President went on, "I would not allow my name to
go before the Republican convention, unless they, all the Republicans,
understood, so that they would not be nominating some individual other
than they thought they were nominating."

3°6 CROSS FIRE

Eureka! Here it was! The President would run. He continued.
"So for both reasons, because I don't know, certainly for certain,
that the Republican convention, after hearing the entire story, want
me, I don't know whether the people want me, but I am — I will say
this:

"I am asking as quickly as this conference is over, I am asking for
time on television and radio. I am going directly to the American people
and tell them the full facts and my answer within the limits I have so
sketchily observed; but which I will explain in detail tonight so as to
get the story out in one continuous narrative — my answer will be
positive; that is, affirmative."

The President was more direct when he went on television that eve-
ning. Speaking from his desk in his office, he told the listening and
watching people:

"I have decided that if the Republican Party chooses to renominate
me, I shall accept. Thereafter, if the people of this country should elect
me, I shall continue to serve them in the office I now hold.

"Aside from ail other considerations, I have been faced with the fact
that I am classed as a recovered heart patient. This means that to some
undetermined extent, I may possibly be a greater risk than is the normal
person of my age. My doctors assure me that this increased percentage
of risk is not great.

"So far as my own personal sense of well-being is concerned, I am as
well as before the attack occurred. It is, however, true that the opinions
and conclusions of the doctors that I can continue to carry the burdens
of the Presidency contemplate for me a regime of ordered work
activity, interspersed with regular amounts of exercise, recreation and
rest . . .

^ "But let me make one thing clear. As of this moment, there is not the
slightest doubt that I can now perform as well as I ever have all of the
important duties of the Presidency . . ."

^ Mentioning that he could cut out many social and ceremonial func-
tions and that he would not stump the country in the campaign, he
outlined his political reasons for the decision, and concluded:

"The work that I set out four years ago to do has not yet reached the
state of development and fruition that I then hoped could be accom-
plished within the period of a single term in this office."

Thus was the momentous decision made known. With no attempt
to gloss over, much less hide, a single pertinent element of his condition,
the President said in effect: It's up to the people, I'll stay on the job
if they want me to.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 307

The first Cabinet meeting after the President's announcement was
Friday, March 2. He looked wonderfully hale. He asked me to stay on
after the meeting, evidently because he wanted to talk about some un-
favorable comments currently being made by the conservative wing of
the Republican Party that the Taft point of view was not adequately
represented in the Administration. The President asked me what I
thought. I said, "Naturally, I would be considered a Taft man, 5 and
I must say my views generally have been well represented." The criti-
cism was no doubt justified even though Eisenhower had on his personal
staff Jack Martin who had been Taft's principal assistant in the Senate.
I did say that, "if there's anybody you'd like me to talk to to help
out, just say the word." More prominence to the sound Taft philosophy
would have been good for the Administration and the nation.

Three days later while in Salt Lake to address the Farm and Ranch
Congress, I took up with President McKay the problem of my own
tenure in political office. As before, he said he thought I should continue
as long as the President felt he wanted and needed me.

The Democrats, as I mentioned, were making a strong effort to re-
store mandatory price supports at 90 per cent of parity on the so called
basic crops. The House had already adopted this action in 1955 and the
Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, it was reported, was
divided 8 to 7 in favor of the high rigid supports. It might make a big
difference in the final decision if we could change one vote and get
the Senate Committee to come out against high rigid supports.

Our information was that three Democrats were voting for flcadbles
(Anderson of New Mexico, Holland of Florida, and Eastland of Mis-
sissippi) while three Republicans were defecting to the Democrat side
(Thye of Minnesota, Young of North Dakota, and Mundt of South
Dakota) . The vote of the Committee was scheduled to be taken during
the first week in March.

Senator George Aiken called a confidential luncheon meeting to be
attended by Aiken, True Morse, Earl Butz, the three Democratic Sena-
tors, and myself. We had a sandwich lunch in Aiken's office. There we
sat, a Republican Secretary of Agriculture, a Republican Senator who
was ranking minority member of the Senate Agriculture Committee,
and three Democratic Senators, trying to figure out some way to in-
fluence one Republican Senator to "defect" from his position to vote
with the Republican side of the issue. It would have made a wonderful
news story if it had gotten out at that time.

During the conversation, Senator Anderson said: "I recall when I

308 CROSS FIRE

was Secretary of Agriculture, there was a particularly close vote on a
critical issue coming up in the Senate. We needed every vote we could
get. Some Democratic Senator was voting with the Republican side. The
White House had used every type of persuasion they knew on him,
without results. I knew him personally. In the afternoon I picked up
the telephone and called the President at the White House, and sug-
gested that we might change his vote if we could have breakfast with
the President tomorrow morning. The President objected. However, I
persuaded him to breakfast with us. As we sat down to breakfast in the
White House, just the President, the Senator, and I, after some pre-
liminary conversation, the Senator turned to the President and said,
'What do you want, Mr. President?' The President answered, 'I want
your vote.' The Senator answered, 'Under these present circumstances,
how can I refuse it?" 5

Anderson suggested that this tactic might work with one of the three
Republican Senators. But we decided it was too late to try it even if we
had wanted to.

Much lobbying went on for and against our proposals, I might say
that the popular picture of Washington as a city infested with lobbyists
representing every sort of special interest and with lobbyists, more than
legislators and the heads of executive departments, running the United
States Government is a bit overdrawn.

True, there are a great many lobbyists. It is true also that the govern-
ment couldn't run nearly so well without some of them. The issues on
which a Congressman must legislate are so numerous that he cannot pos-
sibly, through his own efforts, be well informed on everything. He relies
on others, both for factual information and for counsel: his staff, the
executive departments, the leadership of his own party, the services
provided by the Library of Congress, committee hearings, and, by no
means least important, representatives of particular firms and industries
or, in other words, lobbyists.

At his best, the lobbyist is a most useful instrument of representative
government. At his worst, he is everything the public believes him to
be. There are far more leaning toward the former than toward the
latter category.

As the Federal Government has taken over more and more economic
decisions, the role of the lobbyist almost inevitably has grown. Govern-
ment today has become a political arena within which various economic
interests vie with one another for influence and favorable action. The
lobbyist's job is to assure a persuasive presentation of his client's point

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 309

of view, backed up by the best facts and arguments he can marshal.

Although lobbyists usually employ their persuasion directly on gov-
ernment officials, one of the subtler techniques is to work on individuals
or groups that a Congressman or executive officer might be expected to
look to for counsel. As an illustration: Fairly early in my term of
office, a Subcommittee of the House Agriculture Committee, headed
by Congressman William S. Hill of Colorado, was holding hearings on
imports of beef. Aled Davies, a lobbyist for the American Meat Institute,
had reason to believe that Congressman Hill might seek counsel on this
subject from a particular rancher in Hill's home district. Davies tele-
phoned the rancher, explaining the situation in such terms as he hoped
would emerge in the hearing. Sure enough, Congressman Hall did consult
his rancher constituent and received the information Davies wanted him
to have. Naturally it carried more weight, reaching Hill from a source
he himself had approached. (Davies, incidentally, is a high type lob-
byist.)

Some lobbyists seek to build "claims 55 on Congressmen or executive
officials to be presented at a suitable time — claims based on past favors,
actual or alleged promises, and real or imaginary precedents. Or they
may attempt to persuade by promising to do a service.

Contrary perhaps to popular opinion, threats and desk pounding are
seldom resorted to, though they have been used now and then in the
Department of Agriculture — after which the offenders were promptly
shown the door.

As for "pay-offs, 55 speaking for the USDA, I feel about as sure as I
can be that no attempts to bribe any person in that Department oc-
curred during my eight years of service.

No, it is not by bribery or threats that irresponsible lobbyists do harm
to the national interest, but rather by the development of "fake 55 proj-
ects. A smart operator can take an idea with natural appeal, such as
"protection against imports 55 or "raising price supports, 55 and persuade
the membership of an organization that their future depends on some
particular type of legislation. Once the membership becomes con-
vinced, the lobbyist has launched his career.

If the issue he selected can be kept alive indefinitely but not won, he
may have carved out a lifetime job. From this point of view the battle
for higher and higher price supports is perfect for the lobbyist. It can
be fought forever but never conclusively won.

On the other hand, the occupational hazards of waging war for an
honest issue which can be won is illustrated by the dairy lobbyists, who
fought for years against control of the industry by the milk distributors.

q I0 CROSS FIRE

When milk marketing orders came in and provided minimum prices
for milk, this was, in effect, a victory for the dairy lobby. The battle
against the milk distributors became a dead horse. The result was
temporary technological unemployment for a number of lobbyists, most
of whom, I feel sure, were sincerely glad to see the issue won.

For my part, I am grateful for the lobbying for sensible, realistic
farm programs carried on by most of the farm organizations. The Farm
Bureau Federation especially was a tower of strength for us. The
Bureau's representatives testified before Congressional Committees, made
countless contacts with the legislators to explain the importance of vot-
ing right, and urged their members to make their sentiments felt in the
halls of Congress.

Sometimes these efforts proved effective; at others they were blocked
by the complexities of politics.

For example, early in 1956, a double farm battle was under way; the
battle for our proposals and the struggle by our opponents to go back
to rigid 90 per cent supports. This second issue looked extremely close
in the Senate, The Farm Bureau accordingly induced a flood of tele-
grams from Arkansas to Senator J. William Fulbright of that state, urg-
ing him to back flexible price supports on cotton. The Bureau felt Ful-
bright was wavering. He had indicated to them that he appreciated the
merits of their position, but since he had taken a stand in Arkansas in
favor of high, rigid supports, he couldn't afford to change. Roger
Fleming of the Farm Bureau suggested that if Earl Butz and I met with
the two Senators from Arkansas, Fulbright and McClellan, we might
perhaps swing their votes. Plans were made for the meeting to be
held in a basement room of the Capitol Building, following our testi-
mony before the Joint Committee on the Economic Report on February
28, 1956.

McClellan and Fulbright came in one door and Butz and I came in
the other, because the issue was so hot politically that they couldn't
afford to be seen conferring with a Republican Secretary of Agriculture.
We sat and talked with them for about an hour. McClellan said he'd
vote on our side. Fulbright protested in effect that "John has four more
years to explain his shift of position in Arkansas before he comes up for
election. I have only two months. I can't run the risk." Clearly Ful-
bright wanted to vote with us, but felt he dare not take the political
chances. While he had no opposition in sight at the moment in the
primary in Arkansas, he said the attorney general was watching him,
and would probably declare for the office the minute he (Fulbright)

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 3II

stubbed his toe. I offered to go to Arkansas myself and stump the state
in his behalf if he would vote his convictions.

On the way back to our office, Earl suggested to me that we might
get Fulbright's vote if we allowed his name to go on the bill being sub-
mitted in the Congress to establish a minimum floor under cotton acre-
age — a floor below which the Secretary of Agriculture could not cut the
acreage. This would be popular in Arkansas, and it might permit Ful-
bright to explain a shift of position on price supports.

"O.K., give it a try," I told Earl. "But check with George Aiken
first." Earl phoned Senator Aiken and told him our plan. He said, "It
sounds good, but don't lose Jim Eastland's vote. 55 Earl phoned Eastland
and explained the plan to him, and he said, "O.K., but don't lose
Senator Stennis." Earl told Eastland we could put his name on the
bill, and he replied, "I don't need it. I have four years to go yet."

Earl then phoned Senator John C. Stennis. When Stennis voiced no
objection, Earl called Senator Fulbright and made the proposition to
him. But he still was reluctant to take the risk. We lost his vote, I feel,
not because he misunderstood the issue or didn't want to vote right,
but because he believed the electorate of Arkansas had not yet been
brought up to date. I think he was wrong. I think he could have told
the voters why he had changed his mind on price supports and they
would have backed him more than ever. But I'm not judging him; Fm
just saying I don't think some of our legislators give the electorate
enough credit for fairness and common sense.

I've sometimes thought and said of timid politicians, "Principle
doesn't bother them." But I'm not saying this of the Senator from
Arkansas.

Maybe he was concerned about what seemed to him a conflict of
principles.

I'm just sorry he couldn't go along.

25

This Bill Is Not Right

March 8 brought the first important vote on the farm bill in the Senate.
The verdict was 54 to 41 against restoration of rigid high price sup-
ports. Thirteen Democrats joined with 41 Republicans in opposing the
high supports provision. Only 6 Republicans deserted the Administra-
tion to join 35 Democrats in voting for a return to 90 per cent supports.
It was very gratifying. We hoped it presaged further victories for the
Administration.

The next morning I had a private conference with the President at
8:45 before Cabinet. We went into the Cabinet meeting together and
after the brief prayer he surprised and delighted me by saying: "I feel
like offering a special word of prayer today for a Secretary of Agri-
culture who can bring forth the vote we got in the Senate yesterday on
the Farm Bill."

But, as so often happens in Washington politics, this was only the lull
before the storm — or should I say, the cloudburst. In the next eight
weeks we found ourselves in the fight of our lives to hold the line not
only against restoration of the old program but against even further
government regulation of agriculture.

In mid-March the Senate passed by a sizable margin a many-times
condemned two-price plan for wheat, added a provision making high
supports mandatory for feed grains, and gave special treatment to
wheat, corn, cotton and peanuts, making them eligible for support at
up to 107 per cent of parity.

Already, more than two months had passed since the President's
message, two months filled with political maneuvering and bickering.
More than 100 amendments had been offered to the farm bill — a bill
which, at its best, embodied only part of the President's recommenda-

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 313

tions. Never had I known a legislative process to be so indicative of
political expediency and so devoid of principle,

March 19 was another day to remember.

At breakfast at the White House, we reviewed the legislative situa-
tion and went over a draft of a proposed statement which Senator
George D. Aiken planned to use near the end of the debate on the
Farm Bill. Throughout the day and evening we were in touch with
the debate in the Senate through Senator Aiken, our captain in the
fight, and former Congressman, Jack Anderson of my staff.

At about 10:30 p.m., after adding additional damaging features, the
Senate took final action and passed a bill. It was probably the worst
piece of farm legislation ever approved by either House of Congress.
Our program recommended by the President had been mutilated, dis-
torted and emasculated until the proposals were hardly recognizable.

Among the many bad features of this bill were:

A two-price plan for wheat and rice. This was nothing less than
price fixing and a tax on bread and rice that would hit hardest at our
low income citizens — an artificially high price for domestic consumers
and a lower world price for exports.

Dual parity on wheat, peanuts, cotton, and corn. This was indefen-
sible because it provided for two ways of figuring parity — both of them
outmoded — and allowed the use of whichever resulted in the higher
price. Moreover it singled these four commodities out of some 250 for
special treatment.

Mandatory supports on feed grains. This would result in increased
production and piling up of these grains in government warehouses.

Raising of dairy supports from a minimum of 75 to 80 per cent of
parity and the use of an out-of-date base and formula for determining
the dairy parity.

Compulsory increased set-asides on wheat, cotton and corn. This
would have the effect of establishing higher support prices for these
commodities because the stocks set aside would not be included in the
formula in determining the support price level.

A provision which made participation in the Soil Bank compulsory
for farmers who wanted to be eligible for price support.

The proponents of this bill seemed to think they could take a dollar's
worth of crop curtailment and a dollar's worth of production incen-
tive and get two dollars' worth of benefit to the farm economy. They
couldn't seem to realize that these measures, far from holding up farm
income, would hold up nothing and nobody but the taxpayer.

314 CROSS FIRE

Unless it became greatly improved in conference, I could see no way-
out except for the President to veto the bill.

Since the Senate bill differed considerably from the House bill passed
in the previous session, committees from the two chambers would now
meet to attempt to whip out a bill acceptable to both houses. Of the
five conferees named from the Senate, three were high price support,
price-fixing advocates — Senators Allen J. Ellender, Olin D. Johnston,
and Milton R. Young. Two Senators, George D. Aiken and Spessard
L. Holland, generally favored the Administration's position. Although the
House conferees had not been named, we assumed they would include
the three ranking Democrats and the two ranking Republicans, at least
four of whom were high support men and the fifth a high support ad-
vocate for dairy products.

It was disappointing indeed to see the efforts of months result in a
bill that would harm, not help, agriculture and the nation.

Fortunately, we did have some of the President's recommendations
embodied in separate legislation. The school lunch and brucellosis pro-
gram had passed both Houses and were in conference, as was the gas
tax refund bill. We had also had a bill introduced involving needed
changes in our credit operations for the Rural Development Program
and the Great Plains Program.

The President called a meeting of the legislative leaders next day to
consider what might be done, I expressed my opinion bluntly. "Mr.
President, I urge a veto of this monstrosity, if it reaches the White
House in anything resembling its present form. This is a vicious bill. It
is utterly indefensible. I urge a veto along with a plea to the Senate to
pass promptly a simple Soil Bank bill."

I also strongly suggested to the President that he go on TV and
radio and take this issue directly to the people.

Two days later at another White House breakfast which the President
had planned to attend but did not because of an emergency, Sherman
Adams, Jack Martin, Fred Seaton, Jerry Persons, and I explored rather
fully the possibility of getting the bill cleaned up enough in conference
so that the President would not be forced to veto it. Obviously some of
the White House staff were weakening on several major issues, particu-
larly the domestic parity two-price or multiple-price program for wheat.
I told them that I was going to speak at the National Press Club lunch-
eon next day and that I expected to come out against this and other
undesirable features in the bill.

Later that day Fred Seaton telephoned me from the White House

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 315

asking for a copy of the notes I proposed to use at the Press Club. Still
later he called again and vigorously objected to what I proposed to say
of the two-price plan. I went ahead, however, with my speech as
planned.

Then, another blow fell; word came that Senator Clinton Ander-
son had resigned from the Senate Agriculture Committee. There were
apparently two reasons. Senator Anderson was tired and worn out
from fighting for a sensible farm program; moreover, party difficulties
were hurting him. Party leaders wanted to wean him away from his
participation in agricultural legislation because more often than not
he had been on our side. Throughout the 1956 sessions thus far they
had tried to keep him so busy with atomic energy and other matters
that he could find very little time to devote to agriculture. His going
would be a real loss to the committee and to agriculture.

Now only Senator Holland and in a measure Senator Eastland on
the Democratic side would support our position. With three of the
seven Republican members of the committee being of little help, every
battle would be uphill.

Some of the White House staff, urged by political leaders, began to
bring considerable pressure for a compromise. At another White House
breakfast on March 27, conducted by Sherman Adams, we launched
into a very vigorous discussion on this point. Taking the position that if
we compromised our stand on the farm bill then before the conferees,
we would desert and alienate those who had been backing us and would
pick up very little, if any, added support, I also argued that any ap-
pearance of wavering would weaken our supporters in the election
next fall.

The conferees that same day voted to set aside the Agricultural Act
of 1954 by continuing 90 per cent rigid supports for another year as
well as dual parity. I couldn't help making an I-told-you-so comment,
"Where would we be now if we had offered to compromise today? We'd
have gained no ground toward a better bill and we'd have lost the
respect of many of our supporters."

This seemed to me to be concrete final evidence that the President
would be forced to veto the bill. Not so some of those on the White
House staff. They kept trying to convince the President that we must
have a farm bill regardless of its content. At various sessions during the
next few days True Morse and I did our utmost to persuade them that
it would be better not to have any bill than for the President to sign this
one. The President himself was under such terrific heat that I could not
predict the outcome. On April 6, 1 saw him for a half hour and pointed

ojQ CROSS FIRE

out to him the undesirable features of the bill and the importance of
standing firm in opposition to it. But he made no commitment.

On April 7, meeting with the President again, I suggested a few
items on which we could compromise without sacrificing principle. "We
might go as far as we did in the Act of 1954 on the support level for
the basic commodities and continue support at 82/2 per cent for one
more year. We might also accept the dairy provision for one year. Other
than this, there seems to be no room for further compromise."

On April 9, True Morse, Marvin McLain, Jack Anderson, Don
Paarlberg, and I met again with the President and the Republican
legislative leaders and for about an hour I went over the farm legislative
situation and urged upon all of them the importance of maintaining our
constructive position. It was finally agreed that when the conferees
brought out the bill, the GOP leadership would move to send it back to
conference with instructions for improving it.

This proved futile, however, for on April 12, more than three months
after the President's message had gone up to the Hill, the House and
Senate conferees finally reported out a bill that was every bit as bad as
we had feared it would be. I was amazed at the large number of Re-
publicans and Democrats alike who supported it. Some of those I
thought we could count on 100 per cent were afraid to stand up and
oppose it. The bill finally passed both House and Senate. The vote in the
Senate was 50 to 35; in the House 237 to 181.

The Administration made an attempt to substitute modified flexible
supports for rigid supports, but lost it 238 to 181. Twenty-seven Re-
publicans deserted the Administration, while we picked up the votes of
only 14 Democrats.

What had happened? This Congress was much the same in composi-
tion as the previous one which had passed the Act of 1954. Could a
presidential election year make this much difference?

The Democrats were gleeful. They had put across a political bill
through and through. If approved, it would open the Treasury to the
fanners of the Midwest. It would be the end of the Act of 1954, a clear-
cut reversal of Administration policies that would give the Democrats a
hefty club with which to beat us in the fall election. Apparently, they
believed it unthinkable that the President would veto a give-away farm
bill in an election year. But if he should be so politically unwise as to
do so, this, the Democrats seemed to think, would present the electorate
with the clearest proof of all — the Democrats were for farmers, the

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 317

Republicans were against them. This was probably the most critical
point in our fight.

The White House staff and the USDA were plainly at opposite poles.
We were sure that the measure had to be vetoed. The White House
staff was equally sure it must not.

The pressure was really fierce, especially from the Midwest. Three
Republican governors came in to insist that the Administration had to
support the bill. They were Leo Hoegh of Iowa; Fred Hall of Kansas;
and Joe Foss, an ace aviator with a fabulous war record, of South
Dakota.

The President was on a work-play "vacation" in Augusta, Georgia. He
alone could untie this knot.

Representatives of both viewpoints would have to go to the President
and argue the matter with him.

At 6:30 p.m. on Friday, April 13 (glad I was not superstitious),
Morse, Paarlberg, Gabriel Hauge, Fred Seaton, and I left for Atlanta
in a government plane. From Atlanta, we took a plane to Augusta.
We reviewed the whole situation en route, but we got no nearer agree-
ment.

On arrival in Augusta, we went immediately to the hotel for a brief
session with Jim Hagerty regarding plans for the crucial session next day.
I retired about midnight, wondering what my feelings would be 24
hours later. I didn't want to think, much less say it, but this could be
the issue on which I would resign.

The President was not only my leader, he was my friend. Only a
few days before an article by Charles J. V. Murphy in Fortune Maga-
zine had said this of the President and me: "The relationship that
has developed between the two men is unique in the Cabinet . . .
there is a rare quality in their friendship. A highly placed Presidential
aide describes it thus:

" 'Benson has more characteristics of the President, and in his outlook
is more like the President, than any other man in the Cabinet. Like the
President, Ezra is a religious man. Both have a deep faith, and a forti-
tude in their faith. I am speaking of their reliance upon the Unseen;
and of this I am satisfied, from long observation. The Boss and Ezra
have the same ability to stand up to an answer dictated by conscience
and faith; no other men in the Cabinet are their equals in that re-
spect/ "

Yes, the President was my good friend. But neither of us would have
wanted this issue decided on any other basis than right or wrong. And
people could sharply disagree on that. We would have to wait and see.

3l8 CROSS FIRE

Next morning we took the case to the President. I went into his
cubbyhole office first, alone.

He said, "Ezra, I've been going through my mail and there's not
one letter here recommending a veto for this farm bill, and I know
that's why you've come here."

"Are there any there from farmers?" I asked.

"No," he said slowly, "I haven't found any."

"Of course not," I replied. "This isn't really a bill for farmers. Farm-
ers know there is nothing of value in it for them. It's a political gesture
through and through and most farmers are too smart to fall for it."

The President looked directly into my face as he said, "My staff is
just about unanimous that I've got to go along with it." I knew how
much the President depended on his staff, how he disliked going against
them. But I knew, too, the courage of this man and his determination
to do what was right.

"Mr. President, do you remember not too long after you came into
office, we had a discussion in your office in which we agreed that if a
thing is right, it ought to be done and that if it is right it will also prove
to be the best politics? This bill is not right. It's not right for farmers.
It's not right for the country. The only right thing to do is to veto it."

He reflected momentarily, then looked directly at me again for several
seconds, as though he were studying my mind. He passed his hand over
his forehead in a gesture he sometimes used. Then he set his jaw. He
bobbed his head down and up vigorously, "I know it," he said. "And
that's why I'm going to veto it."

c 7 Have Today Approved . . ."

The President then called the others into his office. He said he had
decided to veto the bill because it was the only course that was right.
That was that. Now the question became— when.

Gabe Hauge reminded the President that the Republican National
Committee was meeting in Washington next week. He said that Sher-
man Adams and all the staff agreed: "If there is to be a veto, it must
not be done until the Committee has gone home. It would be a wet
blanket on the meeting."

This may have been, in part, a maneuver to put off the day of
reckoning— or it may also have been designed to allow the members of
the Committee from the Midwest to work on the President and perhaps
get him to reverse his decision. In any event, I didn't like the set-up.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 319

Why put off what was right until the Committee of our own party
was out of town?

So I spoke up again, "Mr. President/ 5 I said, "I don't see how you
can do this to the Committee. It just wouldn't be fair to them to hold
up this action and then spring it on them after they've left. They'd read
it in the papers and wonder why you didn't tell them. Wouldn't it be
better to send the veto message up on Monday? Then on Wednesday
you are scheduled to speak to the Committee. At that time you could
tell them very frankly why you felt you had to veto this bill — tell them
you wanted them to know your reasons because they're on the team and
we've all got to pull in harness together."

Again the President reflected. Then: "I don't often go against my
staff. But this time I think my staff is wrong and the Secretary is right.
We'll send up the message on Monday and I'll talk about it with the
Committee on Wednesday."

After this two hour session and a half hour with the President alone,
he invited me to go with him on to the golf course. He did a little
putting, and pointed out to me the beauties of the course, by all odds
the loveliest I had ever seen. When he went in to take his rest, I
strolled around the course and then visited with the President again
briefly before lunch at one o'clock.

On Monday, April 16, 1956, the President sent to the Congress a re-
sounding veto of the farm bill. In it he said: "It is with intense disap-
pointment and regret that I must take this action. I assure you my
decision has been reached only after thorough consideration and search-
ing my mind and my conscience. Our farm families are suffering re-
duced incomes. They had a right to expect workable and beneficial
legislation to help solve their problems. This bill does not meet their
needs.

"The problem is price-depressing surpluses. H.R. 12 would not cor-
rect this situation. It would encourage more surpluses. It would do
harm to every agricultural region of the country and also to the inter-
ests of consumers. Thus it fails to meet the test of being good for farmers
and fair to all our people.

"Among the provisions which make this bill unacceptable are: (1)
the return to a war-time rigid 90 per cent of parity supports for the
basic commodities; (2) dual parity for wheat, corn, cotton, and pea-
nuts; (3) mandatory price supports for feed grains; (4) multiple-price
plans for wheat and rice. The effect of these provisions would be to

320 CROSS FIRE

increase the amount of government control and further add to our
price-depressing surpluses. . . •

"There are other serious defects in the bill such as certain provisions
found in the section dealing with the dairy industry. Still other features
are administratively bad and would require the hiring of thousands of
additional inspectors and enforcers. Bad as some provisions of this bill
are, I would have signed it if in total it could be interpreted as sound
and good for farmers and the nation."

Then the President said he was taking administrative action to im-
prove farm income. He announced the following actions, applicable
to 1956:

Price supports on wheat, corn, cotton, rice, and peanuts would be
continued at at least 82J/2 per cent of parity.

The support price of manufacturing milk and the support price of
butter fat would be increased.

Department of Agriculture funds would be used where assistance
would be constructive, to strengthen the prices of perishable farm com-
modities.

And, the President's message concluded: "I now request Congress to
pass a straight Soil Bank Bill as promptly as possible. It should be in
operation before fall seeding for next year's crops. It is vital that we
get the Soil Bank authorized in this session of the Congress. There is
general agreement on it. I am ready to sign a sound Soil Bank Act as
soon as Congress sends it to me. That can be accomplished in a very
few days if the leadership in Congress will undertake the task."

The veto of the farm bill greatly pleased me. However, the President's
actions in raising the minimum price supports for wheat, corn, rice, and
dairy products was a compromise we opposed and reluctantly had to
accept.

We had previously announced a 1956 wheat price support of $1.81 a
bushel (76 per cent of parity). The President raised it to $2.00 (83.7
per cent of parity). The level of support for corn was raised from $1.40
a bushel (81 per cent) to $1.50 (86.2 per cent).

Rice went from $4.04 per hundred pounds (75 per cent) to $4.50
(82.7 per cent).

Manufacturing milk went from $3.15 per hundred pounds to $3.25
and butter from 56.2 cents to 58.6 cents per pound.

In short, the full operation of the Agricultural Act of 1954 was put
off for yet another year. Because of this delay, the taxpayer's investment
in government-held stocks of price-supported commodities became

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 321

correspondingly higher than it otherwise would have been. Yes, even
following destruction by veto of an economic monstrosity labeled a
farm bill, political expediency won a partial victory. Farmers and tax-
payers generally would pay this bill.

This was the first, and I guess the only time that I was really dis-
appointed in the President. His veto was an act of raw political courage.
Why negate it in part by putting off the inevitable dropping of support
levels? He did it, I knew, out of good motivation; because he feared
there might be no protective legislation enacted at all that year for
farmers.

And he did it, too, because he believed in the gradual approach.
Once at a private luncheon to which he had invited the He-Goons and
me, he had said as much, plainly. We were talking about dairy problems
and how necessary it was to move into a free market. He had smiled
across the table at me and said, "Yes, Ezra is right, but you know some-
times it's hard to be right." And he had talked about the wisdom of
gradual, rather than sudden, change.

There was one provision in the President's statement, however, the
full meaning of which was not immediately grasped by many persons.
"A separate support for corn," it said, "not under acreage control in
the commercial corn area will be announced at an early date."

To that time, price supports on corn had been available to growers
in the commercial areas who kept within their acreage allotments — not
to those who exceeded their allotments. Outside the commercial corn
areas, however, farmers could grow corn without limitation and get
price supports at a lower level. This was an inequity which needed
correction.

Moreover, the 1956 corn allotment, as prescribed by the formula in
the acreage-control law, was only 43,000,000 acres, a reduction of
about 15 per cent from 1955. Such a sharp reduction would make
compliance exceedingly difficult for many farmers. It would mean
much production out of compliance and distress prices for corn in the
fall of 1956.

Making all corn eligible for supports at the lower level would help
stabilize markets for corn and other feed grains.

There was still another hidden "plus" in this provision. It laid the
ground work for the eventual "freeing-up" of corn production, through
the removal of all acreage allotments for corn.

Corn allotments were ineffective anyway. More than half the growers
in the commercial area were ignoring them even knowing that by so

322 CROSS FIRE

doing they forfeited price support. By placing a secondary (lower) sup-
port under corn grown outside the allotments, we in effect would show
farmers even more clearly the futility of the allotments.

We worked hard to get this provision for secondary price supports
on corn into the President's veto message. In so doing, we had valuable
help from Senators Aiken and Dirksen and from the American Farm
Bureau Federation.

Not until the very last hour before the message went up on April 16,
did we succeed in winning the President's approval.

The veto message, sent to the Hill at noon, was flashed across the
country almost immediately. Several members of the Congress had been
alerted and assisted in preparing speeches to defend the President's
position. As the day wore on, we could almost see the sentiment of the
country growing in support of the action he had taken. On Wednesday
when the President spoke before the Republican National Committee,
he was roundly applauded for having the courage in an election year
to strike down a bad, give-away farm bill.

Our opponents were almost pop-eyed with anger as they saw the veto
message bringing the President widespread acclaim instead of the cries
of anger they had anticipated. Senator EUender intemperately cried that
within 48 hours he'd have me before the Senate Committee to defend
the President's veto action. He went through with it — with benefit of
radio, TV and much fanfare.

Frederick Othman described the scene in his Washington Daily News
column, "I suppose what the people wanted to see was blood. Seldom
had the Senate Agriculture Committee drawn such a crowd. The at-
traction was Benson versus Senators and no holds barred.

"The folks filled every chair; they stood against the apple green
walls. Every seat at the press tables was filled; the TV cameramen
clamored for places to put their cameras and they set up so many spot-
lights that the back of my neck got sunburned. When Secretary Ben-
son walked in to defend President Eisenhower's veto of the Farm Bill,
the confusion was so great that the official stenographer stepped into
a senatorial cuspidor and splashed water on the green ballroom rug. Mr.
Benson looked as if he was loaded for Senatorial bear. He wore his gray
testifying suit, his dark red cravat . . . then the Secretary began reading
an 8-page statement T appreciate the opportunity to come before this
committee . . .' This brought on laughter."

But that's almost all the laughter we had that day.
I testified for three and a half hours and though it wasn't too bad,
nevertheless, when I read in a newspaper account of our family the

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 323

remark that the "Bensons have been blessed with a small senate of six
children," the description somehow didn't strike me as entirely appro-
priate or flattering.

That night at a dinner given by the Women's National Press Club,
Sarah McClendon, correspondent for a group of Texas papers, brought
down the house by introducing me to the ladies as "The Man Who
Lives Dangerously."

Meantime, the struggle continued. The opposition obviously lacked
the two-thirds votes necessary to enact a farm bill over the President's
veto. An attempt to override lost in the House by a vote of 211 to 202.
This time we picked up 38 Democrats in sustaining the veto, while
losing 20 Republicans.

But our opponents were determined nevertheless, to undo as much of
our program as they could by tacking various outlandish provisions
onto the Soil Bank Bill the President had requested.

They proposed, for example, to extend rigid supports for three years
and actually passed it in the House. Wiser heads prevailed and it was
later removed in conference.

Late in May, after much more delay and confusion, the Agricultural
Act of 1956 was passed by both Houses of Congress and sent to the
White House.

Though far from what we wanted, the bill did contain more good
than bad. I was very reluctant to recommend another veto, even
though I was particularly unenthusiastic about the Soil Bank. For po-
litical reasons, provisions had been added to the Soil Bank proposal
which were never conceived when we first recommended it. After some
intense deliberation we finally made our decision on May 28 to recom-
mend that the President sign the bill.

Thus the Soil Bank, with its two phases, the Acreage Reserve and
Conservation Reserve, came into being. The "conservation" phase was
a valuable tool. But the Acreage Reserve Program, I feared, would
prove to be a tug-of-war which everyone would lose — the Congress and
the Administration, but most of all taxpayers and farmers.

Stripped of all its technicalities, the Acreage Reserve was simply a
program to pay farmers for not producing. I advocated it, not out of my
heart, but out of the difficulty which farmers then faced, and more
especially out of the certainty that the Congress would do something
and that the Acreage Reserve was the least objectionable of the available
alternate proposals. To me, the only real justification for the govern-
ment's paying farmers for not producing was the government's respon-

324 CROSS FIRE

sibility for the farm problem in continuing wartime emergency legis-
lation years after the emergency had ended.

As we presented it to the Congress, the Acreage Reserve, had it been
adopted early in 1956, would have reduced the surpluses and strength-
ened farm prices. But the Congress chose to use it for bargaining pur-
poses. They were willing to give us the Soil Bank — but only if along
with it, we took a return to rigid supports. When this failed, the Con-
gress, with an eye on the ballot box, viewed the proposal simply as a
means of getting dollars into farm pockets. Whether the program would
actually reduce the surpluses, whether it could be satisfactorily ad-
ministered, and whether it was a wise use of public money, did not seem
to be primary considerations.

The Congress delayed so long that the act was not passed until much
of the 1956 crop was already planted. We urged, therefore, that it
should become effective on 1957, not 1956 crops. The plea was disre-
garded.

In a statement on the bill issued May 29, the President said in part:

"I have today approved the farm bill, H.R. 10875. • • •" Then he
pointed out the good and bad features — especially the unfortunate de-
lay in its passage*

26

The ig^6 Campaign

Meantime, two other Bensons had hit the campaign trail.

One day in early March travel complications detained me in Chi-
cago so that I arrived in Washington too late to make a scheduled
speech before the Republican Women's Convention. The talk was to
go on at ii .'30 a.m. When finally I arrived at the Statler Hotel it was
12:25. To my delight, Reed had substituted. The impression he made
must have been fantastic. The women were still swarming around him,
shaking his hand, congratulating him, pleading with him to speak in
their districts and altogether making a real to-do.

The next day Senator Barry Goldwater sent an interesting comment
in a letter:

Dear Ezra:

At a dinner party last night all I heard was how excellent a speaker your
son is. The women who heard him yesterday are extremely complimentary
concerning his platform manner, his delivery and the sincerity that he has
in presenting the subject.

I thought you would like to know this and I am extremely happy that
he is now available to us for use of Republican and other groups around
the country.

After this Reed suddenly came in great demand as a speaker at
Republican conclaves.

Reed had become an excellent speaker, picking up experience holding
missionary street meetings over in England where he established the
first Mormon Church branch at Oxford. Always a champion of freedom
and constitutional government, he delayed graduate work to come to
my assistance during the 1954 Congressional campaign after his honor-
able discharge as an Air Force chaplain.

g 2 6 CROSS FIRE

Employed by the Republican National Committee it was his task to
travel with me, assist in drafting political speeches, arranging press con-
ferences and details in the 1954 campaign. His understanding of
me, my strength and weaknesses, and my desires for a free agriculture,
coupled with some of the wisest counsel I've ever received, made him
a most valued political adviser.

If he sensed a crisis he would drop everything, jeopardizing his own
future career and schoolwork to help.

As a result of this talk the demand for him during 1956 was so great
that he traveled close to 100,000 miles, explaining in nearly 40 states
our struggle in agriculture and I understand that during that presiden-
tial campaign even Ike himself called him the most effective speaker in
the Republican Party.

Flora was delighted, I know, to see how well Reed was being re-
ceived, just as she had always been with recognition given me as
Secretary on speaking trips. She may have felt, however, that this
adulation might go to our heads; if so she hit upon the perfect way of
cutting us both down to size. I had been urging her without much
success to take some of the speaking opportunities that come to Cabinet
wives.

Now, for the first time, she agreed. She and Reed talked over the
economics of the farm problem and then in April she went to Ohio
with the other Cabinet wives to speak to a big meeting of more than
one thousand Ohio Republican women at the Commodore Perry Hotel
in Toledo. One of the reporters began his story of her appearance with
these words:

The wife of the Secretary of Agriculture read her prepared speech here
yesterday, threw it down, then said: "Now ladies, let's start talking."

With quiet integrity and sincerity, Mrs. Benson stole the show. She
captured the hearts of Republican women, many of them from Ohio's rich
farming communities, when she said:

"The fanner will come off 'on top' if he'll do what Ike wants.

"Let's get rid of surpluses, put through the soil bank and create flexible
price supports, then it won't take long to put the farm program on a
sound basis.

"I'm a farmer's wife. I've lived on a farm. I've cooked for thrashers
, . . and believe me, we know what farm life is.

"We may live in Washington now, but I don't have a maid. And when
Mamie Eisenhower comes for dinner the girls and I pitch in and cook it.
I guess I've just raised all my girls to marry poor men,"

Flora was able to talk with conviction about the farm problem both
because of her background as a farm wife and because of her in-

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 327

timate knowledge of what we were trying to do in Washington. She was
a housewife talking to other housewives. She touched a responsive chord
when she said, "When we women see things that are wrong, we must
not just shake our heads. We must speak up. We are men's helpmates
— not just silent partners. And we're the heart of the home — and of the
nation."

Richard Kirkpatrick, a syndicated writer, wrote in the Cincinnati
Enquirer under the heading

THE LITTLE WOMAN (MRS. BENSON) HITS HARD

Everyone knows President Eisenhower has a lot of high-priced and high-
powered Cabinet leaders and advisers. They help keep the nation on an
even keel and spell out the answers to problems. But in case he doesn't
know it yet, a little woman, whose simple home cooking he and Mamie
Eisenhower enjoy, did a better job last week in Ohio in tackling the farm
problem than any Republican who has stepped forward to date. . . .

Wearing no makeup and dressed plainly in black, Mrs. Benson appeared
more like a typical farmer's wife on a Saturday night visit to town. . . ."

Kirkpatrick went on to relate that after Flora finished reading her
prepared speech, she "continued extemporaneously with gestures."

Because of a tight time schedule, she had to be interrupted.

"Are you hungry?" she was politely asked.

"No," she shouted.

"Mrs. Benson is due at a luncheon right now," she and the rapt audience
were told.

"Aw, shucks," said the disappointed Mrs. Benson. She started to carry
on, halting only after a blaring loudspeaker from an adjoining lecture
room drowned out her words. She smiled and stopped.

But that really was not the end of the story. What the press did not
know was that Flora used the luncheon to make an important and in-
fluential convert. Sitting beside the editor of an Ohio paper, she gave
him a vigorous short course on agricultural policy. Up to that time this
editor and his paper had been rather critical of the Administration's
farm program. Before the luncheon ended, he told Flora she had
changed both his mind and his policy.

One commentator suggested, "It might be a wise move for Mr.
Eisenhower to get the family a maid, and send Mrs. Benson out in the
nation to preach the gospel for the Republican farm program."

Actually, this "subsidy" was not necessary. Whenever Flora wished
to, she was able to enlist the additional help of our daughters and fill

328 CROSS FIRE

any speaking engagement that might come to her. The Republican
National Committee did in fact begin to recommend her for a variety
of campaign appearances.

Bertha Adkins, co-chairman of the Committee, listed her as one of the
three top women speakers in the country. But Flora had made her
point. Her main job was as a homemaker on Quincy Street, not on
the hustings or the political soapbox. And though she continued to do
some speaking, home was pretty much where she wanted to stay.

My family's help was needed. And there was aid from another quar-
ter, too.

By this time, it was virtually traditional to demand my head. It
seemed almost as automatic in a campaign as fund-raising. And though
absolute backing by a President of the United States has never been
common enough to become a tradition, President Eisenhower's was
making it so. He later told Earl L. Butz (by then Dean of Agriculture
at Purdue) that "high Republican after high Republican" came to him
with insistent demands for "Ezra's dismissal" in 1956. The only way
"you can get Ezra discharged from the Cabinet," said Dwight Eisen-
hower, "is to ask for my resignation as President. If you want that,
then you can get Ezra. It's just that simple."

Now the nation's attention turned to that most spectacular of all
national dramas, a four-year phenomenon of frantic excitement, an
event that outdraws on television the World Series, the Army-Navy
game, the Kentucky Derby and fights for the heavyweight champion-
ship of the world — the presidential campaign and election. For sheer
sustained suspense, nothing on the American scene approaches it.

For months before the nominating conventions practically all speeches
and all appearances by political figures are political speeches, no mat-
ter how non-partisan their sponsorship or billing.

So when I went to Eldora, Iowa, in June, for a meeting celebrating
the Corn Belt Farm Family Field Days, though it wasn't a political
event, it had politics written all over it. And everybody knew it.

A group of about thirty farmers took seats immediately in front of
the open-air platform from which I was to speak. After I had been
talking about five minutes, ten or twelve of them ostentatiously got up,
made gestures signifying their utter distaste for me and my remarks,
and walked away through the crowd. The rest of the group apparently
planned to boo at the top of their voices every time I said something
favorable to the Administration. They tried it once, then they tried it

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 329

again. They looked around and gestured to those about them, seeking
to whip up crowd reaction. When they received no support at all from
the audience, but instead became targets for jeers, they gave up. They
didn't even walk out. They just sat through my talk without further
demonstration.

On another occasion in the Midwest (I won't mention the name of
the place) something happened that left us all a bit disgusted. We had
heard that an effort would be made to break up the meeting. Nothing
happened, but one of my associates noticed several children, about
ten to fourteen years old, sitting on the grass in front of the platform.
They had apples and tomatoes, and some of them were holding rocks.
After the speech, he went over to them and asked them what they had
planned to do. Some men, they said, had told them to come up to the
front and throw these things at the speaker.

"Well, I'm glad you didn't — but would you mind telling me why you
didn't?"

"Aw, we just didn't wanna. It didn't seem fair."

To get kids to do your dirty work is stooping lower than just about
anything I can imagine. These youngsters had far more sense and fairness
and sportsmanship than the men who tried to get them in trouble.

Eldora is near Ames and I had been asked to go over to the Iowa
State College there for a radio-television program.

It seemed only yesterday that Flora and I had driven to Ames from
Utah in an old Ford pickup. But here it was, thirty years later, in
June 1956, and I was visiting the old Lincoln Apartments where we
had lived that year of 1926-27.

It is good sometimes to go back after many years to the scenes of one's
early married life. Though many changes may have been made in the
physical set-up, there are landmarks, buildings, entrances, hallways,
the shape of a room, the view from a window to evoke a hundred
nostalgic memories.

The photographers saw a human interest story in this visit and they
insisted on taking pictures even up in the garret where we used to dry
walnuts. We saw the rooms where we had lived that happy year, where
I had studied and Flora had cooked, making things easy and pleasant.
This was our first home — where we had started our family and begun
what we hoped would be a happy, and a holy married life.

The biggest difference I noticed in the living quarters was that the
cement shower which we had shared with three other couples had been
eliminated.

230 CROSS FIRE

In those old familiar surroundings at Ames, I had suddenly a kind
of bird's-eye view of our marriage, the whole span of it thus far. Never
in those months at Ames would I have suspected that I would occupy
the positions that have come. Instead I had always thought I would
spend my full life on the little farm in Idaho. But Flora's quiet, inspired
planning and hard work helped to direct our paths into other areas.

As I looked around, I thought of what I'd like to say to all young
married couples: Work together. Don't be afraid to set your sights high
and donH settle for less than you are capable of, in service to God, your
homey your nation and your career. Do today's job, whatever it is, as
best you can. This is the best possible preparation for tomorrow's op-
portunities.

I didn't have a chance to say it then, so I'm taking the opportunity
to do so now.

This was the year Secretary of the Interior Douglas McKay left the
Cabinet to contest with Wayne Morse for one of the two Senate seats
from Oregon. I thought it was a mistake. Not that McKay wasn't a
good man and a good political competitor; he had amply proved him-
self. But we already had a highly respected candidate, an ex-minister
and a fine speaker who had announced for the race. I first learned
about McKay's running one day at a luncheon with Len Hall and
some other Cabinet people. We were talking about the political set-up
for 1956, and during the luncheon Len took a phone call from the
chairman of the Oregon Republican Committee.

To my complete amazement, I overheard Len insisting that the can-
didate had to be Doug McKay, that he was the only fellow who could
beat Morse. Summerfield was sitting next to me, and I looked at him
in consternation. Of course, this wasn't something for me to butt in on,
but I just shook my head and Summerfield asked, "What's up?"

"Len's making a mistake," I said.

"How so?"

"Because it's going to weaken us, no matter who our candidate is.
We can't just step in and bust up this other fellow's candidacy. He's too
good a man, too well thought of,"

I didn't say anything to Len; he hadn't asked for my opinion. But a
little later when I went out to Oregon to speak at a fund-raising dinner,
this other candidate was present, and he got up and made a few re-
marks, and I knew right there that we had a split in the party that was
going to make it mighty tough for McKay.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 33 1

And this was the summer Adlai Stevenson, trying to get some politi-
cal mileage out of the farm problem and the baseball season, quipped,
"The only way to break up the New York Yankees is to get Ezra Taft
Benson to manage their farm system."

(Columnist Roscoe Drummond entirely inadvertently answered Ste-
venson by writing, on another occasion: "Eisenhower didn't think the
answer to the farm problem was to fire Benson the way the owner of a
faltering baseball club tries to solve his problems by firing the manager.")

By the time the Democrats assembled for their convention in Chi-
cago in mid-August, the farm issue they had been counting on to make
hay with had pretty well fizzled out. Farm prices had strengthened
considerably since the first of the year, and even as the convention
went on, livestock prices at the Chicago market and elsewhere were
improving.

But judging by the Democratic farm plank you'd have thought dis-
aster had every farmer by the throat. After professing the Democrats'
deep love for farmers everywhere, the plank called for high rigid sup-
ports, the Brannan plan and other "guarantees" of prosperity.

It left me disgusted. It was a tossed salad made up of inaccuracies,
half-truths, platitudes and promises impossible to fulfill. I said so.

But I was glad to see Stevenson renominated. He seemed to me the
best of the Democratic candidates. Ex-President Truman lost stature,
I thought, by trying to squeeze out Stevenson in favor of Averell Hani-
man — obviously because Stevenson had refused to take Truman's dic-
tation. The real excitement of the convention, however, was the struggle
between Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee and young Senator John
F. Kennedy for the second spot, with Kefauver barely winning*

The pre-convention excitement surrounding the Republican conclave
was heightened by the Stassen campaign to push Chris Herter, then
Governor of Massachusetts, as a candidate for Vice President instead
of Nixon. It came so late, and it had so little backing, there never was
a ghost of a chance that it might succeed. The real reason Stassen did
it, I've never been able to fathom. There had never been one word about
this in Cabinet, and I think everybody was just as shocked as I was
when he hurled that thunderbolt, except that it turned out to be more
of a fizzled firecracker.

My guess is that Stassen felt Eisenhower might not live out his full
second term, and he figured Herter to be a better second man than
Nixon. Herter had executive experience and he did stand out as a man

332 CROSS FIRE

of principle. He'd been an excellent governor. But this was an eleventh-
hour attempt that was sure to be abortive.

On August 1 6 the Vice President and I discussed some of the plans
for the forthcoming Republican Convention at San Francisco. He asked
for suggestions about people he might appropriately request to second
his nomination for the Vice Presidency and I gave him some names.
We also discussed the agricultural plank of the platform. The whole
conversation was very pleasant and Mr. Nixon went out of his way to
express approval of the way the agricultural program had been handled,
as well as the way the situation was now shaping up.

Our convention began the week of August 19. This, the first political
convention I ever attended, certainly packed a punch. To my surprise
so many people wanted to talk that I finally had to set up an office in a
room down the hall from Flora's and my suite at the St. Francis Hotel.
An astonishing number of Republican Congressmen wanted to have
their pictures taken with me.

The members of the Cabinet, one after another, spoke to the Con-
vention. Because I had been a kind of whipping boy, I guess, the crowd
gave me a grand reception.

We didn't spend all our time at the Cow Palace, however. Flora
and the girls enjoyed Chinatown, rode the cable cars, visited Fisher-
man's Wharf, saw the zoo and Golden Gate Park, and I went with
them as much as possible.

Our Eisenhower-Nixon ticket looked good to me — and we all felt
sure it looked good to the country, too.

In recent decades some members of the Cabinet customarily have
taken a big part in political campaigns; others hardly any. The Sec-
retaries of State, Defense, and the Treasury stay pretty much aloof;
the Secretaries of Labor, Interior, and Agriculture get in there and
slug. In 1948, for example, Brannan and Tobin, of Agriculture and
Labor, carried a big part of the load for Truman. Wallace and Ickes
helped FDR stump the country. But Dean Acheson didn't get out on
the campaign trail in 1952. And in 1956 neither did Dulles, nor for
that matter Wilson or Humphrey. This was one time I was willing and
eager to go all-out.

^ The entire Benson family got into it. The girls appeared several
tunes at political rallies to sing and Flora talked before women's groups.
Reed and I stumped the country. My emphasis was in rural areas—
we called it "faim-storming."

In the three and a half weeks before the 1956 election, I farm-

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 333

stormed in seventeen states from California to Pennsylvania, making
more than a hundred speeches. These included meetings on farms and
ranches to which had been invited from 50 to 400 or 500 people
from the general area; meetings at the crossroads; on courthouse lawns,
in schoolhouses, and in large auditoriums before audiences of up to
many thousands of people. Deliberately, I selected some of the worst
drought areas in the Midwest, such as areas in Missouri, southern Iowa
and Nebraska in which to campaign. Meeting and shaking hands with
literally tens of thousands of farmers, I discussed with them as honestly
and as frankly as I knew how, the farm problem and the issues con-
nected with it. I emphasized particularly the mess we had inherited, the
comprehensive study we had made of the farm problem, the fight for
sound legislation and our struggle to get agriculture on a prosperous
peacetime basis.

Pointing out progress in expanding markets at home and abroad, I
exploded the false charges that the Administration was forcing farmers
off their farms and that the family farm was passing out of the picture.
I showed that 96 per cent of our farms were family operations — the
same percentage as 30 years ago — and less than 3 per cent were run
by corporations. More people had left the farm in the previous ad-
ministration than ever before.

"The greatest move out of agriculture occurred six years ago — under
Harry S. Truman," I said, "but it was not Truman's fault. It was a
natural adjustment."

Our opponents made a strong effort throughout much of my tenure
in the Cabinet to convey the impression that our policies were driving
families out of farming. In October 1956, shortly before the election,
they arranged a "Benson Farm Sale" in Velva, North Dakota. This was
widely publicized as a concrete example of a farmer being driven out of
agriculture because he could not make a go of it under the Eisenhower
policies. We investigated and this is what we found: The "farmer" was
not a real farm operator at all, but was actually a town policeman who
also owned a farm. The real reason he quit farming was so that he
could put his property into the Soil Bank. It was also reported that his
wife was one of the major forces behind his decision. She was sick and
tired of milking cows.

This thing boomeranged on the opposition and probably increased
the Republican vote in that area.

We had made extensive preparations for the campaign. My staff had
prepared a loose-leaf notebook with an immense quantity of factual
material on every conceivable farm subject — and I had only to thumb

qoa CROSS FIRE

through it to select the facts around which I could build any specific
talk.

To help get to the largest possible number of people at the grassroots,
we used small private planes, two station wagons, and private automo-
biles. It was a strenuous trip, and at times I almost reached the point of
exhaustion. But it was exhilarating to note the response of the people.
The Republican National Committee and the White House apparently
were overjoyed with the results as they measured them through then-
own sources from time to time during the tour.

Len Hall was most complimentary. It became quite evident as the
year wore on that the farm situation was improving. Actually, I was
told that the handling of the farm legislation, including the President's
veto of the first farm bill, had done more to unify the Administration
and the party than almost anything that had happened since the Eisen-
hower team came into office. Even some of our most outspoken critics got
on the bandwagon in the summer and fall of 1956, and began to en-
dorse the farm program. I had seen a good many domestic critters but
politics was the strangest animal of all.

On Election Day, November 6, Flora and I went up to the President's
suite at the Sheraton-Park to visit with him, Mamie, and Mrs. Doud.
We sent the girls home about midnight, but Flora, Reed, and I stayed
until about 2 : 30. By that time it appeared the President would be re-
elected by a very heavy popular and electoral majority.

The price of hogs incidentally had risen to $15.50 during the summer
and that's what they averaged for the rest of the year. President Eisen-
hower carried all of the hog-belt states. Most of the 19 Republican
Congressmen who had been so irate against me in January were returned
to office; those who weren't elected had to look to something other than
the price of hogs for the reason. Several of them later told me privately
they regretted having pressured me to support the price of hogs. But I
don't recall that any of them ever said publicly that our policy had been
proved right.

In a few areas of the Midwest and the West, there was a substantial
decline in the farm vote for various Republican candidates for the
Senate and the House. A few incumbent Republicans who favored the
Administration's farm program were defeated. So were some who op-
posed it. In view of the cross currents affecting the situation, however,
it was impossible to tell what effect the price supports controversy had
upon any of these contests. Actually, the serious drought which had
gripped some rural areas for years was probably a much more important

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 335

factor. No government drought-relief program can ever be a satisfactory
substitute for rain. When a man sees his crops and his range burned
up year after year, he may decide that he has nothing to lose by switch-
ing his vote. Apparently this happened in enough instances to bring
about the defeat of several Republican candidates by extremely narrow
margins.

The net result of the elections, however, was no change in the numer-
ical division in the Senate, which remained 49 Democrats and 47
Republicans. In the House the division before the election was Demo-
crats 230, Republicans 201. After the election the Republicans still had
201 seats but the Democrats had 234, having filled four vacancies.
Everything considered, the Administration had done remarkably well in
the Farm Belt, far better than the Democrats had hoped for and the
pessimists in our own party had feared. Governor Leo Hoegh of Iowa
and Governor Fred Hall of Kansas, who had come with Governor Joe
Foss of South Dakota, to press the President to sign the farm bill, but
which he had vetoed, both lost in their bids for re-election. Joe Foss's
term still had two years to run.

A campaign was over.

27

The Year of Might Have Been

On November 14, in Rochester, New York, for the 90th Convention of
the National Grange, Flora received a telephone call from Bob. Barbara
had just had a daughter — born on Mrs. Eisenhower's birthday. We
were all delighted, and a few days later Flora left for Calgary to spend
some time with Barbara and our new granddaughter. I was secretly
amused at her elaborate preparations for our meals during her absence.
Thanksgiving Day dinner was prepared by the girls, and in the idiom of
the youngsters, it was not only delicious, it was good, too.

Flora left the refrigerator absolutely loaded with food, and she took
great pains to assure herself that the girls knew just what and where
everything was. She even prepared several principal dishes, so there would
be a minimum of questions about what we were to eat for the first few
days she was gone.

The children used to say, "Mom's afraid that Daddy won't give us
anything but his specialty." They knew their mother pretty well, but I
knew her even better. I don't think she really believed for a second that
I was going to put the whole family on a diet of whole wheat bread,
honey, milk, and onions.

The explanation of her actions was simple: Flora was very serious
about her job as mother.

On October 23, when the political campaign was reaching the peak
of its intensity, many thousands of miles away, in the heart of the grain
and cattle region of the Danube Valley, another conflict began.

Budapest is noted as a health resort, and what was beginning that
October afternoon should have been healthy to the human spirit the

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 337

world over. The people of Budapest were in active rebellion against
slavery.

The Hungarian capital has many old and beautiful buildings and
certain beautiful streets. But none of these mattered much in the darken-
ing shadows of that fall afternoon.

What mattered was that Budapest has a fine university, and some
2000 of the university's students were marching toward the radio station
intent on the business of the moment, which was to demonstrate in a
peaceful, orderly way for freedom from Communist domination.

On that memorable Tuesday, October 23, 1956, between 5 and 5:30
o'clock in the evening, the shops and factories were closing for the day.
In sizable, then large, then huge numbers their occupants fell in among
and behind the student marchers. In sizable, then large, then huge
numbers, others followed to watch.

When they came to the square where the radio station stood, there
were now not the original 2000, or even 10,000 or 30,000, but 80,000
people.

A policeman, either frightened or foolhardy, fired his revolver. Then
the secret police, either frightened or trigger-happy, loosed a hail of
lead from machine guns.

So revolutions start, and so also wars begin. The crowd, maddened
beyond restraint, answered the hail of bullets with a rain of stones,
bricks — anything that came to hand.

And as the swift, hard bullets spatted against flesh and splintered
bones and bodies sank to the ground and blood began to run in the
streets, anger and hatred and fury raced through the whole city, and
through the suburbs and entire countryside and into and through other
cities in all of Hungary. In the suburbs of Budapest, though the power
was soon cut off, lights showed in the windows of almost every house —
candles of hope and encouragement to keep the revolution burning.

First it was bare hands and stones against revolvers and machine guns;
then it was Molotov cocktails and guns captured from the oppressors;
eventually it was weapons from the army as the army itself swung into
the struggle for freedom.

And then, when freedom seemed won and the fighters of the sponta-
neous revolution, unplanned and unrehearsed, were tasting how sweet
only victory can be, the Russians came in with deception, tanks, and
artillery. Very soon it was all over.

Campaigning I read about all this. Read how a young boy trying to
shoot up a tank was ridden down and crushed beneath the caterpillar
treads. How the commander of the Freedom Fighters in one part of the

^g CROSS FIRE

city turned out to be a girl not more than twenty. And I wondered what
we as a nation would do— what we could do— what we dared to do.

As the weeks went by, I became rather ashamed of the apathy that
seemed to countenance our silence, and our first weak protests. We had
encouraged the captive nations to believe that we would spring to their
defense if and when they made a real surge for freedom. Now when the
Hungarians had seemed almost on the verge of successful revolt, we had
simply stood aghast while the Communist juggernaut rolled over the
Freedom Fighters. I was sick at heart.

Of course, I respected the President's judgment and knowledge of
our capabilities. I knew his courage. I thought I knew something also
of the anguish he must have felt during those days when Hungary died

again.

There seemed little to do— I was, after all, assigned to Agriculture—
but that little I desperately wanted to do.

Early in December, I urged Sherman Adams to urge the President to
make a very vigorous and strong statement against the brutality of the
Soviet Union in Hungary to be released in connection with Human
Rights Day, December 10. Adams asked me to draft an appropriate
statement for consideration by the President. This was done.

On December 9, Jim Hagerty called from Augusta, Georgia, where
the President was vacationing, to tell me that the Chief Executive was
delighted and was about to release the statement with a few minor
changes.

This declaration on human rights was headlined all over the country
as the strongest and most outspoken position the Administration had yet
taken in pinpointing the moral infamy of the Soviet government:

On December 10, the United States together with many other nations will
observe Human Rights Day. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations eight years ago
has rightly been hailed as a milestone along the road that leads to world-
wide recognition of the inherent dignity of man.

This year the free world has the most compelling reasons for observing
Human Rights Day with renewed awareness and resolution but it has little
cause to 'celebrate' that day.

The recent orgy of brutality in Hungary has moved free people every-
where to reactions of horror and revulsion. Our hearts are filled with
sorrow. Our deepest sympathy goes out to the courageous, liberty-loving
people of Hungary.

The Hungarian Massacre repudiates and negates almost every article
in the Declaration of Human Rights.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 339

It denies that men are born free and equal in dignity and rights, and
that all should act in the spirit of brotherhood.

It denies the human right to life, liberty, and security of person.

It denies the principle that no one shall be subjected to torture, or to
cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

It denies that no person shall be arbitrarily arrested, detained, or exiled.

It denies that all are equal before the law and entitled to its equal
protection.

It denies the right to fair and public hearings by an independent and
impartial tribunal.

It denies the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.

It denies the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

It denies the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.

It denies that no one shall be held in slavery or servitude.

It denies that the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority
of government.

It denies the right to leave one's country or to seek in other countries
asylum from persecution.

That these human rights have been so flagrantly repudiated is cause for
mourning, national and world-wide.

But the human spirit knows, as Jefferson said, that "the God who gave us
life, gave us liberty at the same time." Once again the tree of liberty has
been watered by the blood of martyrs. The courage and sacrifices of the
brave Hungarian people have written anew in crimson the sentiment
attributed to Patrick Henry nearly two centuries ago.

Not only government but the people of many nations have reacted in
spontaneous sympathy. I am proud of the response of our voluntary agencies,
humanitarian organizations, and State and local governments — but I am
especially proud of what so many of our people have done, and are doing
as individuals.

We shall continue to offer shelter to the homeless, as we shall go on
feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and providing medicines and care
for the sick.

On this Human Rights Day, it is for each one of us to recognize anew
that we are brothers in our Father's house, and each is truly his brother's
keeper. We cannot shed that responsibility, nor do we want to. Let us
resolve on this day that the world shall never foiget what tyranny has done
in Hungary.

Each in his own way let us do all that we can to build public sentiment,
world-wide, to such a pitch of resolution that the cause of Human Rights
may once again move forward.

So doing, these honored dead "shall not have died in vain.'*

No project that I helped initiate outside agriculture gave me more
satisfaction. If we would not save the Hungarian people from the heel
of the oppressor, yet we could, and did, in blunt syllables condemn his
action and give vent to the utter revulsion it engendered throughout the
free world. Actions speak louder than words, but when no action is taken

340 CROSS FIRE

the best thing that is left is words, and I was convinced this statement
was the absolute minimum.

This statement, somehow, seemed to tighten the ties of friendship
which years of working together had already forged between the Presi-
dent and me.

Though prices were moving in the right direction at election time, I
was more and more alarmed at the tightening of the cost-price squeeze
on farmers. Farm progress was constantly being nullified by the rising
cost of operating a farm. A steel strike would be settled with a wage
increase and almost immediately the price of farm machinery would
jump 5, 7, or 10 per cent.

Farmers are at the end of a line. They can't pass on their increased
costs to others. This kind of inflation was stealing dollars from farmers'
profits every day of the year.

On December 19, after much thought, I wrote the President.

Dear Mr. President:

As you so well know, our farm people are feeling the pressure of a price-
cost squeeze. This continues to be true despite some improvements in farm
prices during the past year.

Much of the pressure which generates this squeeze comes from rising
costs in processing and distribution, both for articles farmers buy and for
articles they sell.

There is a saying among our farm people which expresses their view far
better than I can. "Collective bargaining," they say, "means that labor and
industry bargain with each other and then collect from us"

I think there is much truth to this saying, and I think that everyone in
the country is concerned, not just farmers. In the present circumstances of
strong demand for industrial products and a tight labor market, "soft"
settlements of wage disputes are all too frequently made, with wage in-
creases outrunning gains in productivity. The resulting increased costs are
passed forward to consumers in the form of higher prices and backward to
producers of many raw materials, especially farm products, in the form of
lower returns.

The adverse effect of soft wage settlements is greater for farmers than
for any other group, because farmers lack bargaining power. Furthermore,
farmers get hit twice, once when they buy and once when they sell. But
all consumers feel the pressure of rising prices. The threat to overall
economic stability is the greatest danger of all. Inflation is nobody's friend.

I have great respect for what has been and can be accomplished through
the sound fiscal and monetary policies followed by this Administration.
But the tremendous power concentrated in the hands of industry and labor
introduces a new variable into the economic equation, a variable not
easily controlled by fiscal and monetary policies.

I think that proper restraints should be placed on all groups, including

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 34I

industry and labor, to prevent the development, through monopoly power,
of a condition contrary to the national welfare. If our laws do not now
provide that protection, changes should be considered.

I believe that you should address yourself to this matter in your forth-
coming State of the Union Message or in your Economic Report. The
present situation calls for leadership. You have won the confidence and re-
spect of all economic groups to an unusual degree. You are in a better
position to deal with this matter now than anyone has been hitherto or is
likely to be within the foreseeable future. Please give this suggestion your
earnest consideration.

On the last day of the year we wound up 1956 with what seemed a
rather appropriate ceremony: we completed an agreement with the
government of Brazil for the sale of $138,000,000 worth of agricultural
commodities.

As I looked back, 1956 was the year of "might have been/ 5 It might
have been the year in which, building on the Agricultural Act of 1954,
we achieved the price support program U.S. farmers needed — the year
which turned back the tide of surpluses — the year which launched U.S.
agriculture on a new wave of prosperity — the year that saved U.S.
taxpayers many billions in future expenditures.

As it turned out, 1956 was a year of battle — to hold the line of ad-
vance won in 1954 and of struggle to push just a little farther ahead.

It was the year in which the Conservation Reserve, the Rural Develop-
ment Program, and the Great Plains Program came into existence — all
of them programs of lasting significance.

The pity of it was that 1956 could have been so much more.

The Acreage Reserve was passed so late that it became, in effect,
virtually a drought relief program. It provided payments for production
decreases which resulted in some cases not from any intention or effort
on the part of the farmer to reduce output, but from unfavorable
weather. Our administrative people did not have enough time to work
out operating details. Millions of dollars were spent unwisely. We paid
farmers who plowed down poor drought-retarded stands of wheat that
were nearing maturity because the payments per acre under the Reserve
would bring them more net income than harvesting the low yielding
stands. This was an abuse of the whole Acreage Reserve concept.

True, the program did reduce production somewhat and it did re-
tard the rate at which the surpluses were being accumulated. Also, the
level of farm prices turned upward in 1956, an effect which may have
stemmed to some extent, both economically and psychologically, from
the Acreage Reserve program. But the cost was too high.

These are some of the reasons I thought of 1956 as the year that

342 CROSS FIRE

might have been. Yet in retrospect it did preserve the flexible principle
won in 1954 and it did take us farther along the road to a prosperous
and free agriculture.

It was truly amazing to see the Congress lag so far behind the average
citizen and the average farmer. Nation-wide poll after poll indicated
that farmers wanted less government in agriculture, wanted the govern-
ment to discontinue the administration of strong Federal farm programs
from Washington, There were other signs. The responsible farm organi-
zations over the country petitioned the Congress time after time to get
the government out of agriculture. Much of this fell on deaf Congres-
sional ears.

But, above all, because of what happened in Hungary, because of
the freedom so nearly and dearly won, so horribly lost — 1956 will al-
ways be The Year of Might Have Been.

This was the year of Sputniks I and II. Sud-
denly Russian rocketry was no laughing matter.
We took a new look at our science, our schools, our
defenses, our alliances.

The United States successfully test-fired an At-
las intercontinental ballistic missile. Britain set off
its first hydrogen bomb. Harold Macmillan suc-
ceeded Sir Anthony Eden as British Prime Minis-
ter.

The first underground nuclear explosion was
set off in Nevada.

An interracial crisis at Little Rock, Arkansas,
focused attention on a man named Faubus. Sena-
tor Joseph R. McCarthy died.

President Eisenhower suffered a mild stroke
from which he quickly recovered and the Admin-
istration set out to complete the work undertaken
in its first term.

1957

28

The Short, Happy "Era of Good Feeling*

Four years before I had gone into the President's Cabinet, humbly and a
stranger. I was grateful for what I found there; a team composed for
the most part of persons of outstanding ability, with a strong sense of
dedication, a capacity for leadership, and integrity; and at their head a
man whom I had come to know as one of the great and good Ameri-
cans.

Samuel Johnson said, "The superiority of some men is merely local.
They are great because their associates are little." The President's
superiority was not local, but, in a sense, universal; he was great even
among big men.

Now two of the original members of the Cabinet were no longer there:
Martin Durkin and Douglas McKay. A third member, Mrs. Oveta
Gulp Hobby, who had entered the Cabinet when the Federal Security
Agency became the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in
April 1953, had gone back to Texas because of her husband's serious
illness. In July 1955, Marion B. Folsom, a man of long experience in
government and business, had replaced her.

James P. Mitchell, who had had an extensive background in labor
relations and who owned the respect of labor and business leaders alike,
followed Durkin; and Fred Seaton, a Midwestern newspaper and radio
station executive and a figure in Nebraska politics, succeeded McKay.

As for the rest, Dulles, Wilson, Humphrey, Summerfield, Brownell,
Weeks, and I were still on the job.

"Have you found your position as a Church official incompatible with
your work as Secretary of Agriculture?" This question, put to me by a
newsman had loomed large in my mind when President-elect Eisen-
hower had invited me into his Cabinet.

346 GROSS FIRE

Four years ago, I had been truly concerned about the public reaction
to my appointment, fearful lest it occasion heated public debate on the
issue of separation of Church and State. This was a time when a rebirth
of national unity was uniquely necessary. Subversion, the spy scandals,
Korea, and unwise government policies had torn our people apart, and
I dreaded being the possible occasion of one more controversy, especially
on so sensitive a subject.

No clergyman had served in the Cabinet for a full century, not since
the Reverend Edward Everett, pastor of the Brattle Street Unitarian
Church of Boston, had been Secretary of State under President Millard
Fillmore in 1852-53. So far as I know, Dr. Everett and I are the only
clergymen ever to serve in presidential Cabinets.

It turned out that the fears were largely groundless. With his almost
uncanny feeling for the reactions of the people, Dwight Eisenhower had
never doubted for a moment the wisdom of his invitation. A few items
did appear in the press comparing my Church rank with that of a cardi-
nal in the Roman Catholic Church or a bishop in the Protestant
churches and questioning whether appointment of such a high church-
man of another faith would not have aroused a huge flurry of protest.
Happily, these items all spoke approvingly of the appointment and my
qualifications, even while raising the "separation" question. Some com-
ments came forth in reply making the point that since the Mormon
Church has no professional clergy, there could hardly be a parallel be-
tween the existing situation and the theoretical appointment of a priest
or minister of another faith. (The Mormon Church does not train men
for a paid priesthood.)

For my part, being more than willing to stay clear of contention in
this regard, I said nothing.

To our great satisfaction, my dealings with members of all churches
had been uniformly friendly. Far from being critical, religious leaders
had sent numerous letters of encouragement and commendation. I
recall on one occasion receiving a lovely scroll from an alumni group of
Notre Dame University. During each of my years in the Cabinet, I have
been given, and have accepted, opportunities to address religious groups.
At all these meetings of Baptists, Catholics, Jews, Methodists, and many
other religious groups, I had without exception been received with
warmth and the utmost cordiality.

For us, the very first order of business in the new year was to endeavor
once again to secure harmony with the agricultural committees of the
Congress. A meeting was arranged with all the Republican members of

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 347

the Senate and House Committees on Agriculture — 21 Congressmen in
all.

We talked back and forth with complete frankness and, to my delight,
with an apparent harmony of viewpoint. I felt good enough about it to
say at the end of the meeting, "This is what we need, this harmony.
The Administration is very anxious to avoid another all-out fight over
farm legislation this year. We're going to keep our requests to an absolute
minimum, and take them up one by one, rather than lumping them to-
gether." Both the Congressmen and the executive branch, I guess, were
applying Billy Sunday's old advice, "Try praising your wife even if it
does frighten her at first."

As of that time, we didn't think we needed to ask for a great deal.
Public Law 480 was due to expire on June 30, 1957; it had to be ex-
tended, as it was getting better results year after year. A new corn pro-
gram was essential; one which would permit corn producers to partici-
pate in the Soil Bank Plan without having to be bothered with acreage
controls. We wanted legislation to remove the penalties that farmers had
to pay on wheat grown above or without an allotment and used on the
farm for food, feed, or seed. No doubt there would be other require-
ments as new problems developed; but these were the principal items on
our legislative agenda in January.

The era of good feeling continued when I went before the House
Committee on Agriculture in a hearing devoted almost entirely to the
progress and improvement of the Soil Bank. It seemed to me the most
constructive hearing I had yet had before this group. The Republicans
who had met with me the preceding week voiced support of the Admin-
istration's program and some from the Democratic side did likewise.

Is it possible, I thought, that we have at long last reached substantial
agreement with a majority on the Ag committees?

Those first weeks in January were used for another fast trip into the
drought areas, this time accompanied by the President. On January 13,
some of my staff and I boarded the Columbine about 3:30 p.m. The
President's staff came aboard and at 4 o'clock, the President himself;
then we started for Texas. I had most of the five hours required for this
first leg of the trip to review with the President many of the things that
were on my mind for relieving the effects of the drought. The trip took
us into Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado, and Kansas. Parts
of Texas had not raised a crop for six years. The first moisture we saw
in the air was when we reached Garden City, Kansas. Here, for months,

348 CROSS FIRE

the land had been blowing badly; but now a heavy snowstorm was cov-
ering the ground with a welcome blanket of white.

Though another year of drought had drained the economy of these
regions even more severely, there seemed no lessening of the amazing
spirit of the people; no evidence of permanent discouragement; rather,
many indications of hope and determination to hang on until the rains
came. Our people are not getting soft when they can bulldog against
catastrophe like this, I thought.

During the trip, I had an opportunity to talk with the President. I
raised the question of state participation in the financing of programs to
relieve natural disasters such as drought and floods. It had been my feel-
ing for a long time that in the drought program, in particular, there was
altogether too much dependence on the Federal Government. We needed
a Federal-state arrangement under which the state would contribute a
sizable part of the cost. Out of the approximately $300,000,000 that
had been put into drought relief by the Eisenhower Administration, the
states had contributed less than $3,000,000.

In my opinion, this was dangerous for many reasons. It was a further
step toward the centralization of government and a tacit denial of state
responsibility. It tended to produce inefficiency and waste in the use of
public funds. The President agreed that I should give him a detailed
analysis of the whole drought situation and he would consider the recom-
mendations carefully.

January 20, 1957, was a Sunday; consequently the Inaugural cere-
monies were held the next day. That Monday started badly, with sleet.
It continued almost to the time the President stepped out on the plat-
form. Then, with what some of the press referred to as the typical
Eisenhower luck, the sun burst forth. After he was sworn in, the Presi-
dent spoke for about 12 J/2 minutes. In almost Lincolnesque phrases, he
said:

"Before all else, we seek, upon our common labor as a nation, the
blessings of Almighty God. And the hopes in our hearts fashion the
deepest prayers of our people.

"May we pursue the right— without self-righteousness.

"May we know unity — without conformity.

"May we grow in strength — without pride in self.

"May we, in our dealing with all people of the earth, ever speak truth
and serve justice."

President Eisenhower's admiration and devotion to the principles of
Abraham Lincoln are well known. Of all his predecessors, Lincoln, I

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 349

believe, was his ideal and Eisenhower wanted more than anything else to
be such a President. Like Lincoln, Eisenhower has a simplicity which is
often misunderstood. There were those in the Cabinet in Civil War days
who thought Lincoln a weak man, busy with trifles, easily managed
by those around him. But they learned later the steel that was in him, a
steel enveloped in charity and kindness, but steel withal.

It was that way with Eisenhower, too. Especially in the early days,
there were those who thought him gullible, because of his lack of political
experience. Senator Robert Taft, I understand, expressed himself as
surprised at what "Ike swallows," and worried that the new President
might be misled. But Senator Taft, always loyal and concerned, in the
few months that remained before his untimely death, had learned that
Eisenhower, like Lincoln, tasted much more than he swallowed.

Eisenhower, in taking over the reins, had quite deliberately deter-
mined on a government of quiet confidence. He had often remarked
that unless there was good reason for stirring things up, by changing and
modifying policies, we should leave them alone. He felt that the country
had had too many years of "government by emergency." He'd say in
effect: give the free enterprise system a chance to work. After all, it's
based on the choice of the American people and I've great faith in their
judgment.

He was loath to interfere with the economic system.

And, contrary to a common opinion, he did not run his office the way
a commanding general runs a military installation. He used his staff
extensively and maybe he learned that in the Army, but that is an element
of good human management that certainly isn't confined to the military.
In fact, Eisenhower himself said that military life had few lessons relevant
to civilian policies.

Much of his philosophy was truly Lincolnian and that part of it was
best.

The era of good feeling extended through January and into Feb-
ruary. The lengths to which we went on occasion might be indicated
by the fact that I once had an interview with Senator Ellender in, of all
places, the steam bath at the Senate Office Building, where we talked
over forthcoming hearings. When, a few days later, we had a most
constructive and cordial hearing, before the Senate Committee on Agri-
culture and Forestry, of which Ellender was chairman, I began to
wonder if it might not be worth our while to schedule more preliminary
discussions in steam baths. It apparently helped to keep the steam down
in Congress.

350 CROSS FIRE

The pleasantries continued when I went to St. Louis to speak at a
luncheon meeting of the National Association of Soil Conservation Dis-
tricts. This was the group that had protested so bitterly toward the end
of 1953 when we abolished the regional offices of the Soil Conservation
Service. Since that time, we had worked with respect and cooperation on
both sides.

When we went to Pierre, South Dakota, however, on Lincoln's Birth-
day, there were indications that some South Dakotans thought it time
for the bubble of good fellowship to burst.

A large delegation, headed by Lieutenant Governor L. Roy Houck, was
at the airport. Senator Francis Case, the junior Senator from South
Dakota and a fellow Republican, had just released a blast at me for
adjusting the support levels on grains and other commodities, they said.
The local paper carried blazing headlines:

CASE ATTACKS BENSON

I was scheduled to speak before a politically sponsored meeting. The
atmosphere had become so electric that there was talk that the meeting
should be canceled. However, we decided to go ahead. The city audito-
rium at Pierre was jammed. You could almost feel the tenseness building
up in the audience. Several of the local Republican leaders feared an
outburst at any moment.

During the speech, I was told later, the audience applauded 18 times.
I know that it took almost an hour after the meeting to shake hands with
farmers and ranchers.

The Republican National Committee now had a new chairman.
Meade Alcorn, Jr., had been elected to replace Len Hall. At luncheon,
one day in February, Alcorn and I frankly discussed the politics of the
farm problem. He seemed to think highly of our work in the 1956 cam-
paign. We reached a mutual agreement that the National Committee
should continue to have an agricultural unit headed up by Rollis Nelson,
who knew the problem and was well acquainted with the Department.

At the end of February, we had our first spat of the new year with a
Congressional Committee, and, as might have been expected, it came
with an old antagonist. For six hours, I testified before the Agricultural
Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations, Representa-
tive Jamie L. Whitten of Mississippi, chairman. The two hours of the
morning session were taken up largely by speechmaking and philosophiz-
ing by the chairman; nothing was said about appropriations. Though

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 35I

the long afternoon session was a little better, especially toward the end,
it was, nonetheless, a disappointing day.
It must have seemed so to the members of my staff. Two notes said;

Feb. 28, 1957
Ezra:

You chalked up another fine performance today under very diffi-
cult circumstances. At the end of the day, I find myself wondering
what makes men like yourself sit and take the kind of guff you did
today. But whatever it is, you seem to have a strong portion of it.

Earl Butz

Secretary Benson

You did a wonderful job yesterday before the Committee — as an
agricultural statesman and as a Christian gentleman. You gave us all
a great lift. It would be a hard pull without your leadership.

Don Paarlberg

Our real problems began in March.

We had asked the Congress to pass a simple corn bill which would
have eliminated acreage controls, and given the Secretary authority to
set the level of supports at his discretion, with, however, a minimum of
70 per cent of parity. In December 1956 the nation's corn producers
had voted 6ij4 per cent (vs. 38/2 per cent) in favor of such a pro-
gram and we felt this was what most corn producers wanted.

But it was not what some of the farm bloc in the Congress wanted.
Congressman Harold Cooley was fighting vigorously against this bill. A
significant thing was happening however. The farm bloc apparently had
split wide open, with the cotton, peanut and tobacco South in general
beginning to take sides with us against the high-price-support-minded
wheat and corn North. Though it was too early to tell, it looked as
though we had a fair chance of getting the corn legislation we wanted.

A far more serious problem had also come up with respect to the
whole price support position. The law, you see, provided that the level
of support on the so-called basic commodities-^such as wheat, corn,
cotton, rice, and peanuts— would move up or down in accordance
with smaller or larger supplies of each of these commodities. A smaller
supply called forth a higher level of support, and vice versa. This was
in the Agricultural Act of 1949, but it was a principle that went back
to 1938.

Here was our dilemma. We had in P.L. 480 a quite effective mecha-
nism for surplus disposal. The trouble was that as we moved out any
surplus, it would become mandatory under the law that the level of

352 CROSS FIRE

price support be raised. When the surplus had been reduced low enough,
price support would be up at 90 per cent of parity.

We knew from bitter experience what to expect when price support
for most or all of these commodities reaches 90 per cent. This is an
incentive price; it calls forth increased production. It is also an artificial
price; it sends potential buyers of these commodities shopping around for
lower prices elsewhere. The combination of these two factors could only
result in another build-up of surpluses in government hands. Obviously,
the formula, called an escalator formula, had to be eliminated.

If you are asking why we didn't foresee this, say in 1954, the answer
is that we did. But we knew it was out of the question to expect Congress
to pass such legislation in either 1954 or 1956. Our hope was that
markets would expand fast enough so that this dilemma would not
arise.

It had been a forlorn hope. The dilemma had now arisen beyond
doubt. Here was a major issue of the type we had hoped to avoid in
1957 and we knew it involved another fight.

We worked up an outline on the subject and waited for the first good
opportunity to take it to the White House and to Cabinet. Early in April,
at a White House breakfast, I presented this as the next and most basic
step in the farm legislative program. We proposed to broach the subject
with a letter to Senator Ellender and a similar one to Congressman
Cooley. Boiled down to the minimum, we were going to ask that the
escalator formulas be eliminated and that the entire price support pro-
gram be placed on a discretionary basis as was already the case for feed
grains (except corn), the oil crops, and all commodities except the
basics, dairy products and a few specialty crops. The Secretary would
be permitted to establish the support price at any level he deemed neces-
sary or advisable, consistent with certain safeguards written into the
law, to prevent his action from being simply arbitrary.

We held our breath.

This same proposal made a year earlier would have been greeted with
cries of alarm and even of anger. But now the presentation seemed to be
sympathetically received. This was progress.

In Cabinet on April 12, I put the proposal before them. The Presi-
dent and the Cabinet unanimously approved the proposal with only
minor editorial changes. My good friend, George Humphrey, who had
become more interested in and knowledgeable about the farm problem
than anybody else in the Cabinet, said:

"In my opinion, this is the most constructive proposal on agriculture
that has come before us in all the time I've been here."

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 353

On April 16, Earl Butz and I went to the White House for an early
morning meeting with the legislative leaders and the minority leaders
of the Agricultural Committees, Representative Charles B. Hoeven of
Iowa, and Senator George Aiken. We reviewed the material presented
to the Cabinet a few days before. There seemed to be general agreement
that we had to move in the direction indicated. It was decided, how-
ever, to postpone for a few weeks the formal submission of letters to
Ellender and Cooley in order to give all of us ail opportunity to do some
educational work through speeches, news conferences, and informal dis-
cussions.

That same day I testified before the House Agricultural Subcommittee
on Appropriations, and was agreeably surprised to receive rather warm
words of praise from several members. This did not mean that the dif-
ferences in philosophy and fundamental approach between Whitten and
H. Carl Andersen and myself had been eliminated, but only that, for the
time being, these differences did not figure so prominently in our discus-
sion as in the past.

That afternoon, Meade Alcorn came in to tell me about a Midwest
Republican conference that had just been held in Omaha. "The senti-
ment in the farm belt is much improved," he said. "As a matter of fact,
there seems to be more interest in the matter of balancing the budget
and the question of Federal aid to education than in the farm problem."

Good news. Here again was evidence of action and reaction on the
political scene. A year ago 19 Congressmen had demanded that I take
an action I thought unwise. A little later tremendous pressure had been
brought on the President to repudiate me and sign a bad farm bill.
Governors from the Midwest had come in and said, in effect, their states
might go Democratic if the bill was vetoed. But after the elections, the
reaction set in. Now we were riding a wave of confidence. I hoped it
would carry us. But I knew, too, that it could break under us almost
without warning.

It was certainly good to know, however, that the farm problem had
become less acute; it was also extremely satisfying that the balancing
and reduction of the Federal budget had become a primary concern to
our party — because it certainly was of major concern to me. A couple of
weeks before this when the matter had come up in Cabinet, I had
emphasized just as strongly as I knew how that we needed to push hard
for legislation which would bring about greater economy of Federal ex-
penditures and a sounder Federal-state relationship in the use of public
money.

354 CROSS FIRE

Upon returning to the office that day, I had composed and sent to the
President a memo:

RE: Budget

On further reflection on the very important matter you raised in Cabinet
this morning, I suggest the following for consideration:

(i) The environment for a reduction in federal expenditures . . . may
never again be as favorable during this Administration as it is now. An
effort should be made to capitalize on present sentiment.

(2) There are a number of things that should be done regardless of timing
or current sentiment but which could likely be done more easily now
than at any time in the next four years such as:

(a) Setting a uniform minimum interest rate commensurate with the
cost of government money.

(b) Setting appropriate user charges to cover costs.

(c) Provide for reasonable state participation in federal disaster pro-
grams.

These will serve as examples. Many others will occur to you.

As for providing Federal aid to education, this, to me, was a case of
letting the camel get his nose under the tent; if we permitted it, the time
would surely come when the whole camel would be inside the tent.

In May I wrote the President on this matter:

The following, from the Virginia Farm Bureau Federation, is typical
of statements being made by State farm organizations on the subject of
Federal aid to education: There is no surer way to shrink, shrivel and
diminish the citizen's interest in education than to take from him the direct
responsibility for financing, operating, and controlling the schools where
his children are educated. 9

I realize the decision has been made on Federal aid to education. I had
planned to speak out against it once more in our last Cabinet meeting but
felt that after Marion (Folsom) made his excellent presentation that you
did not intend that the subject be discussed further.

I am doubtful that we will get the legislation and I am convinced that
should we get it, it will do more harm than good in the long run. I wish
there was some way we could gracefully withdraw.

At Cabinet next morning the President referred to my letter and then
asked that photographs showing the adverse conditions existing in some
schools be circulated. I don't suppose he thought in this way to convince
me of the need for Federal aid; but if so, he did not succeed. Though I
didn't say so, I thought, "You can get pictures showing adverse condi-
tions on many areas in U.S. society; this in itself is not an adequate rea-

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 355

son for Federal Government's injecting itself actively and financially into
each and every one of these problems. The Federal Government can and
should point out the need for improvement but this is quite different
from entering actively into education which, throughout the previous
history of this country, has been a state and local responsibility. If we
continue to bring the Federal Government into more and more areas
wherever a need for improvement exists, where are we going to draw
the line? What is to be left to state and local initiative?"

Meantime on May 2, the letter pointing out the need for eliminating
the escalator clauses and providing for discretionary authority in estab-
lishing the levels of price support had been sent to Senator EUender.

The letter pointed out that a technological explosion was occurring on
American farms. Production per farm worker had doubled in the last
fifteen years, making it virtually impossible to curtail agricultural output
with the type of controls acceptable in our society.

Farmers will not accept, legislators will not vote, and from a prac-
tical standpoint administrators cannot impose the kind of controls
which, at the price objective specified by law, would be necessary to
bring production into line with market outlets.

Since we apparently cannot legislate scarcity, the letter continued, we
must learn how to live with abundance.

If any product is abundant, it cannot long be priced as if it were
scarce.

If farm products are abundant, the need and the challenge is to build
markets so that this abundance can be used. We cannot build markets
by pricing ourselves out of them.

Then the letter stated that the agricultural budget submitted for the
coming fiscal year was in the neighborhood of $5,000,000,000, the
equivalent of nearly half the net income of our farm people. While a
large part of this $5,000,000,000 was in the form of loans which will be
repaid, permanent improvements in the agricultural plant, and other
activities which should not be considered as expended for the primary
purpose of supporting farm prices and farm income, few of our people
would object seriously to the heavy costs of the farm programs "if these
costs were temporary and if the program were moving toward a solution.
Instead, however, with the old formulas in governing legislation, costs
seem likely to continue high with little progress toward a permanent
solution."

In fiscal year 1956 we experienced a net realized cost, on programs

356 CROSS FIRE

primarily for the support of farm prices and farm incomes, of
$1,900,000,000.

Further adjustments had to be made. On more than two hundred
farm products for which price supports were authorized, all but eleven
had general guides provided by law as a basis for price support without
the use of fixed formulas. For these numerous commodities, problems had
been less troublesome than for the basic commodities (and the several
highly specialized ones, including honey and tung nuts) which worked
by formula. Therefore, the letter implied, why not extend the system of
discretionary support across the board? Why not adopt a system that
works?

29

Scenes behind the Scenes

That spring was a good one for the Bensons in many ways.

In late April Bonnie, Beverly, and I took a week's trip by car — we
had just bought a secondhand Ford convertible — to Virginia, North and
South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and
Tennessee. As we drove through rural areas I explained to the girls the
kind of agriculture that was. typical of each. Sometimes we'd stop and
walk out into the fields to talk with farmers. But we didn't confine our-
selves to the country. In New Orleans we did the sights of this unique old
city including the French Quarter and, of course, dinner at Antoine's.
And in Florida, we had a few dips in the ocean. But what we all loved
especially was having a whole week to get reacquainted, I with our two
middle girls, and they with their too often "too busy" father.

Mother's Day, May 12, brought lovely letters and messages from all
the family, unembarrassed to confess their love.

In May we received word that Mark had been chosen a member of
the bishopric of the Church in Provo, Utah. He had made Phi Beta
Kappa at Stanford with an average high in the 90s. He had gone into
business and done amazingly well. Several tempting business offers had
been dangled before him with salaries ranging up to $20,000 a year. He
had turned them down to join the faculty of Brigham Young University
as Chairman of Institute and Short Courses. I don't thin k parents could
have been prouder of anyone than Flora and I were of Mark and Lela
and their wonderful young family. Mark had been a devoted missionary
and we knew it was like him to put his Church work ahead of any finan-
cial reward, no matter how attractive.

Unfortunately however, I also lost two top-notch assistants that

oc8 CROSS FIRE

spring. Jack Anderson, in charge of liaison with the Congress, was
drafted by the President as a member of his staff and Earl Butz went
back to Purdue. We were all sorry to see them leave. Earl was always
ready with a story, and he didn't hesitate to interrupt the most dignified
proceedings to tell any of them.

He once pulled both my leg and that of "Doc" Enzler simultaneously.
Enzler was my principal speech writer. He had written for Secretaries
Anderson and Brannan, too, and though he was a Democrat, he was,
except for Don Paarlberg, able to catch my "style" better than anyone
who ever tried to draft material for me. He has 1 3 children and he used
to say, "The Secretary's surplus disposal program may break down but
mine is foolproof."

At the last meeting of the staff prior to Anderson's departure, I
referred, in rather dignified terms, to the high esteem in which I held
these two gentlemen, expressed my appreciation for their excellent serv-
ice, and wished them well in their new appointments. Jack thought this
was getting a little too soupy so he broke up the meeting with this com-
ment. "Mr. Interlocutor, the Benson Minstrel Show is losing two of its
best end men."

For the efforts of these and others I have always been and am most
grateful. More than any of them could possibly know, they played a
tremendous role in whatever good we accomplished.

The White House must have thought highly of them, too, because
the President drafted two more of my assistants to serve on his staff.
They were Don Paarlberg, who became Eisenhower's economic adviser,
and Clyde Wheeler, who served with Anderson in legislative liaison.

The summer of 1957 proved to be the least eventful of any thus far
in my term as Secretary. The Congress extended PX. 480 and provided
funds for the continuation of the Soil Bank, but did nothing about our
recommendation to make all price support discretionary and do away
with acreage controls. The farm program seemed to be working well
enough to give Congress the excuse, "Why rock the boat?"

Export sales for dollars and the surplus disposal program were raising
our farm exports to $4,700,000,000, an all-time high both for quantity
and value.

Nearly a million agreements had been signed into the Acreage Reserve
under the Soil Bank, taking out of production 13,000,000 acres of
wheat land, 5,000,000 acres of corn and 3,000,000 acres of cotton.
About 85,000 farmers had put another 6,500,000 acres into the Con-
servation Reserve.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 359

And prices of farm products had been rising for over a year and a
half. From the beginning of 1956 to August 1957 the average farm
price of hogs jumped from $10.90 a hundredweight to $20.00—
nearly double. Beef cattle rose from $13.90 to $18.20, Farm prices over-
all increased about 10 per cent.

Let well enough alone, was the sentiment.

And I was feeling the urge once again to go back to my life's work in
Utah.

Late in June, I raised again with the President the question of my
tenure, expressing a desire to be relieved if he could see his way clear. As
before, he made it plain that he wanted me to continue and that the
thought of my leaving, as something to be desired, had never crossed
his mind. He said again, "If I have to, I'll go to Salt Lake City and ap-
peal to President McKay to have you stay on with me."

With that I threw up my hands. "Mr. President, 55 I said, "this is a
difficult assignment and I'd be genuinely happy to be out of it. But I
have no disposition to run out on you if you feel I'm serving a useful
purpose. But I want to say again that if at any time I seem to you to be
following a course not in the best interests or your Administration, you
have only to pick up the telephone."

That summer, Mrs. Eisenhower entered Walter Reed Army Hospital
for surgery. With the President at the White House one morning, I
found him somewhat anxious and even a little discouraged about his
wife 5 s condition. It stayed on my mind. Later that day I telephoned
President McKay in Salt Lake City to suggest that Mrs. Eisenhower
be remembered in their prayer at the regular Thursday meeting of the
First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve in the Salt Lake Temple.
President McKay at once asked me to convey to Mr. Eisenhower his
prayerful thoughts and the assurance that the next day all of the Breth-
ren would join in prayer in his wife's behalf. I wrote the President,
hoping it would help to ease his mind. In reply, the President wrote that
he took the note to Mamie at Walter Reed. They were both touched
by it.

I was pleased to hear the President comment as he passed, leaving
Cabinet on Friday noon, that Mrs. Eisenhower apparently had taken a
turn for the better Thursday night.

Right after Labor Day, the question of my tenure was brought to a
head again, this time by the Church. I learned to my surprise one morn-
ing that President McKay was in Washington. Later that morning the
White House called to say that my spiritual leader had requested an

360 CROSS FIRE

appointment with President Eisenhower and the White House asked
for my recommendation. Of course, I indicated that I felt sure Presi-
dent Eisenhower would want to see President McKay since I knew he
was rather fond of him.

It had been decided in Utah that President McKay would come to
Washington because the Church officials at this time were planning some
changes in which I might well have a part. President McKay thought it
well to talk with President Eisenhower to determine whether it would be
convenient for him to release me at this time.

In relating all this later, President McKay said, "Mr. Eisenhower
indicated to me that you and he have been very close. In fact, the
President told me 'Ezra and I have been just like this' — and he inter-
locked the fingers of his hands.

"Then he said, 'I just don't know where I could turn to get someone
to succeed him.'

"Now Brother Benson," President McKay went on, "I left no doubt
but that the government and President Eisenhower have first call on
your services. We in the Church can make adjustments easier at this
time than the government can. We want to support President Eisen-
hower. He is a noble character, a fine man. In this case our country
comes first. But, of course, we also want you to do what you would
prefer."

We left it that I would talk to Flora and to the President and after a
few days report back by telephone to President McKay in Utah.

That night Flora and I thoroughly threshed out the whole subject.
Though it was obvious that she would have liked us to return to Utah
we agreed that I should consult with President Eisenhower, relay his
thoughts to Utah, and leave the final decision to President McKay and
the Church.

Eisenhower and I had a long discussion in Newport, Rhode Island,
where he was vacationing. He said, "I recognize that you have had more
than four very strenuous years in Washington and I can appreciate that
your Church is anxious to have you back. I have given this a great deal
of thought, and I will not go contrary to the wishes of your Church if
they feel it imperative that you should leave. But I want to emphasize
that word imperative."

"Mr. President," I replied, "let me tell you what President McKay
told me." And then I related to him what had been said about our
desire to support the President and the ability of the Church to make
adjustments easier at this time than could the government. And finally,

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 361

I repeated President McKay's remark, "In this case our country comes
first."

The President said that he appreciated our attitude. He pointed out
how difficult it would be to make a change now when we needed to get
our legislation ready for the incoming session of Congress.

"I feel, Ezra," he said, "that if you leave now it may mean giving up
much of the agricultural program which we've put in operation and are
trying to push to completion. I wish very much that you would stay
at least one more year. Next fall we can review the situation again. At
that time if changes in the Church occur or other conditions demand
that you go back to Utah, I'll no longer stand in your way. But, if not,
then I would like you to stay" — and here the President smiled — "stay to
the bitter end."

I smiled back. "Do you think the end will be bitter?"

"Not one bit," he said. "Just wait and see."

Next day I phoned President McKay. "Please tell President Eisen-
hower," he said, "that we want to help him in every way possible. And
ask the President to forgive me if I seemed to be intruding; that was the
thing farthest from my mind."

When I relayed this to Newport, Eisenhower laughed, "Far from
intruding, his visit was most gracious."

Summer ripened into fall, and with the autumn leaves, farm prices
began to slip. With each point of decline our troubles again began to pile
up; but not so high as some of the press made out.

The tendency of the press to blow up to huge proportions the trivial
and unimportant is both amusing and irritating.

Here's an example. In October I went to the Corn Picking Contest at
Sioux FaUs, South Dakota, to make a speech. It was a cold, somewhat
windy tenth day of October. I was sitting on an improvised platform
with Senator Karl Mundt and other dignitaries, waiting to be introduced
to a standing audience estimated at 10,000. Governor Joe Foss com-
pleted the introduction and I stepped forward the 25 feet or thereabouts
separating our chairs from the podium and microphones. Just as I began
my remarks, two or three objects came out of the crowd and sailed high
over the platform to my right. I wondered what they were.

Because there was no laughter in the audience or commotion on the
platform behind me, and judging by the height of the objects, I as-
sumed that whatever had been tossed in my direction had cleared the
platform. I finished the talk to the accompaniment of satisfactory ap-
plause.

362 GROSS FIRE

On returning to my seat, I discovered what the missiles had been —
eggs. Except for some slight spattering on Governor Foss, on the sleeve
of the president of the local Chamber of Commerce, and on my hat
(which the wind had blown off my chair and moved some distance across
the platform near the spot where one of the eggs had landed), no dam-
age was done.

The crowd by now had gathered around for autographs and hand-
shaking. I thought no more of the incident. We shook hands as long as
possible and then, because of close connections at the airport, started for
the car. To some, I suppose, this meant that we were hurrying off for
fear of further demonstrations. To my dismay, the eggs, judging by the
accounts in some of the papers, became floating objects only a little less
significant than Sputnik I.

EGGS THROWN AT BENSON
BENSON TARGET OF EGGS

This was suddenly a big story in the papers and on the air. For a mo-
ment, I was a little inclined to believe that journalism did sometimes
tend to become little more than organized gossip.

Art Summerfield telephoned. "I just wanted to tell you, Ezra, that my
active interest in politics was a direct result of a similar act. This was
when someone threw a tomato at Wendell Willkie back in 1940. That
sort of abuse, Ezra, always rallies fair-minded people to your cause."

And it's true that I actually found myself in debt to the egg-throwers.
There had been a definite air of hostility in the audience at the start of
my talk, but the final response was much warmer than there was any
reason to hope for. The only person who felt bitter about the incident
was my youngest daughter, Beth, who complained that it was "not fair"
to throw eggs at her father.

Another amusing but satisfying October event occurred at PTA. Flora
and I tried to take a normal part in community affairs. When she was
placed in charge of PTA memberships and dues at the Gordon Junior
High School where Beth was a student, Flora put her usual energetic
hand to the task and completed a most successful drive. Whenever
possible, I would attend the FTA meetings in the auditorium.

On one October evening, during the meeting in the auditorium, the
principal announced that Mrs. Ezra Taft Benson was heading up the
membership drive and that later on Secretary and Mrs. Benson would
be at tables in the hall to accept dues and memberships. One woman
immediately in front of where we were sitting said to her companion,

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 363

"Imagine a member of the President's Cabinet sitting at a table in the
hall receiving PTA membership dues/'

The temptation to tap her on the shoulder and ask, "And why not?"
was almost, but fortunately not quite, irresistible.

That October brought Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, and His
Royal Highness, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, to Washington. Flora
and I had an opportunity to talk alone with the Queen and I also visited
at some length with Prince Philip. He was very interested in our market-
ing of surplus commodities. I found the Prince alert and most engaging,
though somewhat dogmatic in a few of his views on world trade. I may
be forgiven for the remark; the same observation has often been made
about me.

30

Around the World — in 25 Days

In October, I set out on a trade development trip that was to take me
clear around the world — in just over three weeks.

The itinerary included Japan, Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, Jordan,
Israel, Turkey, Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, and England.

Flora, Beverly, Bonnie, and five staff members who were specialists
in various phases of agriculture, went along; Flora and the girls to help
in social functions, and be unofficial ambassadors; the staff members to
be my advisers.

The purposes of this trip, as of those that had preceded it, were to
observe the agricultural and economic development of the countries
visited; to talk with governmental leaders and officials of trade groups
to see if a further expansion of U.S. farm exports for dollars could be
arranged, and to look into the effectiveness of the various surplus dis-
posal programs under which our farm products were moving abroad.

Since the passage of P.L. 480 three years before, we'd been learning
much about the role of U.S. farm exports in both the national and the
world economies. Several important popular misconceptions about the
role of our farm export had been cleared up.

One popular misconception was the belief that millions in the world
were starving. Our reports from all over the world, as well as from the
FAO, indicated that while there were hundreds of millions of hungry
and undernourished people, there was no widespread starvation. Indeed,
the decades of the 1950s was proving to be perhaps the first decade in
all history that was virtually free from famine.

Another misconception was that the U.S. had only to release its sur-
pluses and the world's food problems would be solved. Part of the sur- n 7

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 365

plus was tobacco and cotton, surely no substitute for food. As for wheat,
corn, rice, and other products, even if all our surplus had been dis-
tributed in areas of need, the world food shortage would not have been
eased for more than a few months — certainly for less than a year.

Of course, the surplus could not be so distributed, despite still an-
other popular misconception — that it is easy to give surplus food away.
Actually we were finding it easier oftentimes to move food into use by
selling it than by donating it. The more prosperous countries were able
to buy or trade for food. To throw giveaway surpluses into their
stream of trade might wreck world commodity markets and do far
more harm than good. As for less developed countries, here the problems
were lack of distribution facilities and organizations through which
large amounts of donated food could be channeled to the needy. Often
the villages in these countries were connected only by foot trails.

Besides inadequate port facilities, these countries lacked storage capac-
ity for grain and refrigerated warehouses for dairy and other products.
Nor did they have the livestock and poultry, as well as the know-how,
to enable them to convert corn and other grains efficiently into poultry,
meat, beef and pork.

Many of the world's people didn't know how to prepare wheat dishes.
Our personnel in the Far East told me they had gone into the villages to
show the women how to make wheat bread. But the habits of genera-
tions are difficult to overcome. At least one old great-grandmother said,
"Yes, we will use wheat — but only until we can get rice again."

In any event, we had learned that food alone is not the answer to
the living problems of people in the underdeveloped countries. The
only permanent solution for these problems is broad scale economic de-
velopment. This means not only more food, but more industry, more
technical skills, better transportation, as well as more fertilizer, irriga-
tion, and agricultural tools to produce good crops — more output per
man. And these can most easily be obtained by people having a maxi-
mum of freedom and a minimum of government interference.

Nothing is better calculated to impress a man with the great drama
of human existence than seeing for himself the varying conditions of the
world's people — how they make their living — their struggle for existence
and, after this is somewhat assured, for cultural and spiritual develop-
ment — their unremitting search for a place of their own, not only a ter-
ritorial home but a place in the society in which they live.

And nothing is better calculated to impress on one the rich blessings
of this choice land of ours, these United States of America.

366 CROSS FIRE

As we started round the world, it was with a consciousness that U.S.
food, whether purchased for dollars or local currency or obtained by
barter or donation, was an important thread in the fabric of world
progress toward peace and plenty.

We reached Tokyo on October 27. During a two-day stay we visited
a number of farms and marveled at the intensiveness of Japanese agri-
culture. On 13,000,000 acres (less than 3 per cent of our cropland,
to say nothing of our vast range and grazing areas) they produced
enough to feed 72,000,000 people (80 per cent of their population).
The Japanese are a fascinating people, industrious, restrained, intelli-
gent, wonderful gardeners, great lovers of nature's beauty.

In Japan I saw a little of what our U.S. food was doing to help im-
prove nutrition. One memorable sight was a thousand children eating
a school lunch consisting mostly of bread and milk produced on Ameri-
can farms. On the streets, I saw mobile kitchens, mounted in buses,
and equipped with loudspeakers, and the Japanese housewives com-
ing around with their children strapped to their backs, to learn how to
prepare bargain wheat dishes. Wheat and dairy products were on their
way to becoming important foods in Japan.

Here was a country that needed large markets in the U.S. to earn
dollars to buy our products. We were selling them about $400,000,000
a year in farm products and an equal amount in other products. They
were having increasing difficulty in paying for these goods.

Japan had become our best cash market for farm products and a very
good market over-all. Only about 3 per cent of her exports went to or im-
ports came from the Communist countries. We had to make it possible for
Japan to continue to obtain her needs from the U.S. and the Free
World.

We saw many thousands of the world's "unwanted" — the refugees
in Hong Kong, in Calcutta, India, and in Karachi, Pakistan. I have no
words to portray the heart-rending scenes in those camps of people
persecuted and driven almost beyond endurance or belief. Some of our
food was going to these places to relieve a little the terrible suffering of
the rejected. It seemed to me no better use of it was possible.

In India I met with Jawaharlal Nehru, the sixty-eight-year-old
ascetic-looking, precise English-speaking Prime Minister of that an-
cient land. Since he had his daughter with him and I had three mem-
bers of my family, the occasion was semi-social, but we talked seriously

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 367

about India's needs and what U.S. agriculture could do to help meet
them.

We met in Nehru's home, a lovely place, adorned with beautiful
Indian furniture. Behind us where we were sitting were pictures of
Mohandas Gandhi and Dwight Eisenhower. I hope it wasn't mean of
me to wonder whether Eisenhower's autographed picture was there all
the time or whether, like a visiting rich uncle's, it had been brought out
for the occasion.

India is, after China, the most populous country in the world. Like
Latin America, it is full of contrasts: great cities bursting with people,
thousands of small farm villages. It has some of the hottest plains in the
world and the highest snow-covered mountains. It has one of the oldest
civilizations in one of the world's newest republics. It has "princes"
of untold wealth; millions living in abject poverty. It has vast natural
resources, but has suffered much from shortages of power and water.

Though India was making some economic progress, the Indians were
having a very difficult problem finding foreign exchange to finance im-
ports for their second five-year plan. We talked at some length about
the possibility of expanding aid through P.L. 480. The existing P.L.
480 agreement with India had been signed in August 1956, and had
been intended to run for three years but during the first year of the
agreement, our exports to India rose from $40,000,000 to $205,000,000.
It looked as though the agreement would be exhausted in less than
three years.

In Pakistan, though the visit was brief, we met the leading officials
with an interest in agriculture.

The Pakistanis had a difficult problem of political organization, be-
cause their country is divided into two parts more than 900 miles apart
with India in between. The people in the two separated parts do not
always agree on major issues. India and Pakistan regard each other
with suspicion and hostility. Though Pakistan is smaller in size than
Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, it has more people than live in all
of the area of the U.S. west of the Mississippi River.

I was immediately impressed by the pride of the Pakistanis in their
unequivocal stand against communism and in being part of the Free
World.

In the little Arab country, Jordan, lying east of Israel, and south of
Syria, we were received by the young, brave King Hussein and a
number of Cabinet officials. Jordan was under martial law. Troops pa-

368 CROSS FIRE

trolled before our Embassy. Jordan had a difficult refugee problem with
about 500,000 Palestinians within its border.

We had a delightful desert meal {Mensuf, a Bedouin banquet) given
by the Minister of Agriculture with the leading tribesmen of Jordan.

The high point of the whole trip came during two days in Israel.

Nowhere were we accorded a warmer or more cordial welcome.
From David Ben-Gurion, head of the government, to the lowliest farm
worker, we were extended every kindness and courtesy. Ben-Gurion, a
peppery, rather stocky man with two bushy tufts of snow-white hair
along the sides of his head, reminded me of Albert Einstein. He had
been injured in a bombing recently but he received me for an hour,
at his request, in his hospital room. This interview was his first official
conference since the bombing and the first time the press had been ad-
mitted.

Ben-Gurion seemed a man completely dedicated to the job of serving
his people and also completely confident that their cause would prevail.
This confidence was based in part on Old Testament prophesies re-
garding the Jews, prophesies of Jeremiah and Isaiah that the Jews
would return to Jerusalem and become a mighty people. He impressed
me also as a man who has a clear insight into what Israel needs to do.
He was not groping for answers. And the result is that he stimulates a
great spirit of unity, devotion, and dedication among his people.

He was not afraid to oppose his own people, or his Cabinet, or any-
one else. Like De Gaulle, he spoke his mind. You knew exactly where
he and you stood.

Like most strong-minded people, Ben-Gurion has a pet theme about
personal living. As part of his health regimen, he stands on his head
every day. He didn't of course, while he was in the hospital. But he
recommended it to me.

In reply, I told him he was a picture of good health, but that I fig-
ured it was probably due to something else than standing on his head.
Then he let it out that his wife doesn't think much of this idea either.
She criticizes him for it, but it doesn't make any difference to him.

Ben-Gurion and I discussed the Old Testament prophesies. I told him
about some of the references to the re-establishment of the Jews in our
book of Doctrine and Convenants. I mentioned that 157 years ago,
two of the elders of the Church, Orson Hyde and John E. Page, were
called to go to the land of Palestine and dedicate it for the return of
the descendants of Judah.

Ten years before that the Prophet Joseph Smith had predicted on the

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 369

head of Orson Hyde that in due time he should go to Jerusalem, the
land of his fathers, and be a watchman to that people. History tells us
that Elder Hyde did go and dedicate the land in 1841, and in 1873
Elder George A, Smith went to that land and again dedicated it for
the return of Judah.

In Elder Hyde's prayer of dedication on the Mount of Olives, he
prayed that the barrenness and sterility of the land would be removed,
that springs of water would burst forth, that the land would become
fruitful again, that the Lord would subdue their unbelief and "incline
them to gather in upon this land." He also prayed that God would in-
spire the kings of the earth to help bring about the promises made to
Judah.

Ben-Gurion was most interested in this account; he knew something
about it already.

I left, convinced that he is a noble soul with a deep love for his
people and a determination to give them faithful and courageous lead-
ership.

During our two days in Israel I met hundreds of government of-
ficials, farmers, business and trade people and leaders in the profes-
sions. We drove by auto into rural and urban areas and flew in a small
plane at low elevations over much of the country. We viewed such
historic places, outside Jerusalem which we covered thoroughly, as
Nazareth, Jaffa, Cana, Mount Hermon, Mount Tabor, the Sea of
Galilee, Tiberias, etc.

Obviously, great progress was being made in Israel — more than in
any country of the Middle East. No nation in Asia or the Near East
had the concentration of technical know-how to be found in Israel.
Capital was flowing in, the population was growing rapidly both from
the influx of people and from natural increase. This nation, in spite of
its political problems, was rapidly becoming the leading industrial cen-
ter of this entire politically unstable area.

The greatest advancements of all were being made in agriculture.
The deserts and hills were blossoming, becoming green and productive
again. The contrast between Jordan and Israel was most marked.
Hills on either side of Galilee, for generations denuded and eroded,
were being covered with forest trees and citrus and oEve groves. In
Jordan, the goats (black locusts as some call them) grazed the sparse
vegetation eating every spear while the erosion of centuries continued
unabated. Already, Israel was exporting millions of boxes of citrus to
northern Europe. Swampy areas were being converted into fish farms
as a principal source of protein. A wide variety of crops adapted to dry

370 CROSS FIRE

and irrigation farming were producing abundantly. Israel was on the
move.

If and when the political problems could be solved, there would de-
velop, I felt certain, a substantial market in Israel for U.S. agricultural
products.

From Israel, to Turkey. We were much impressed by the spirit
of the agricultural officials.

The Turks were perhaps our staunchest ally in the entire Middle
East. Though they had very difficult financial problems — both internal
and external — they were intent on modernizing their agriculture and
indeed the entire economy. The Turks wanted a sizable strategic reserve
of wheat to back up their army and we talked about what we could do
to help.

In Greece, it appeared that a fair-sized dollar market for our farm
products might be had in years to come if the economic development
of the country continued.

Though Italy still had 2,000,000 unemployed and a major problem
of developing southern Italy, I was impressed with the advances made
since a visit in 1955. Good prospects existed for further development
of dollar sales as Italy reshapes its agriculture toward more livestock
and livestock products.

In Spain, wage increases and expeditures for economic development
had caused a considerable increase in consumption of food and fiber.
We were meeting part of this need by P.L. 480 sales. We discussed the
possibility of selling Spain $20,000,000 worth of cotton under CCG
credit, giving them five years to pay.

Portugal impressed me as a country in good financial shape, with a
viable economy and very large foreign exchange reserves.

As industrialization increases, U.S. dollar markets there would also
grow.

In France, the cotton textile industry reflected general European satis-
faction with our U.S. cotton sales program. Price stability had created
confidence and cotton was now more competitive with synthetics.

In England we reached an understanding on the P.L. 480 fruit pro-
gram to maintain our traditional market there.

Then it was time to go home and we arrived back in Washington
about noon on November 16. Little Beth, with Dr. and Mrs. Edgar B.
Brossard who had kindly cared for her, was waiting for the plane to
land. When she saw us, she began to run toward us and broke into

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 371

tears. I swept her up in my arms. With all the wonders of the world,
that moment was suddenly the best of the entire trip.

We had encountered hospitality and friendliness everywhere, but par-
ticularly in the Far East and Middle East — even in the midst of wide-
spread poverty and illiteracy in the agricultural segments of the under-
developed lands.

The trip, I thought, was worthwhile. Not once had I heard the word
"dumping." Not once was a sour note injected. We returned proud and
grateful for America, knowing that no nation under Heaven, past or
present, had ever been so generous with its abundance as had our own
blessed land.

Of course to some persons in the United States, these trips weren't
necessary; taking members of my family along was an unjustifiable ex-
pense to taxpayers; and the trips were too short to be of any use.

The President thought otherwise. He encouraged me to take mem-
bers of the family for the good-will value.

As to the one objection, let me say simply that the members of my
family worked right along with me and helped me more than anybody
else could have done. Everywhere they made a truly excellent impres-
sion. They were as useful as my right arm.

As to the others, here is the record of accomplishments in the export
field up to this point.

The value of U.S. farm exports increased by $200,000,000 in the
year beginning July 1, 1954, by another $350,000,000 in 1955-56, and
by $1,330,000,000 in 1956-57. In short the value of our farm exports
in 1956-57 was nearly $2 billion more than it had been three years
earlier. For every $3 of exports we had in I953~54> we k a( * $5 ' m

1956-57.

At times in 1956 and 1957, there were scarcely enough ships available
to handle the farm products going abroad. This big export movement
didn't "just happen." It was brought about by the combined efforts
of agriculture, industry, and government.

We resisted tendencies to take over the commercial prerogatives of
private business. We continued to reaffirm our faith in the ability of
private trade to do the job of buying and selling U.S. farm products.

But we paved the way, we provided "access" to overseas markets.
For various reasons, U.S. farm products were excluded from many
countries. Sometimes the reason was a lack of dollars. P.L. 480 made
it possible to overcome this problem.

Other barriers were artificial.

The Republic of Germany, for example, had a policy of restricting

Qj2 GROSS FIRE

the quantity of food products that could be paid for in dollars. We got
the Germans to let down the bars for such foods as vegetable oils,
oilseeds, and canned grapefruit.

We arranged with Sweden to lower its bars against cotton, wool, rice,
dried fruits, fruit juices, and canned fruits and vegetables,

Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands did the same
for cotton, tobacco, vegetable oils, and many other commodities.

And we cooperated in hundreds of market development projects.
U.S. breeding cattle were flown to Latin America for exhibit and sale.
German food handlers were shown the large variety of U.S. canned
meat products available for shipment.

Japanese buyers of tallow were encouraged to adopt scientific sam-
pling methods. U.S. rice samples were temptingly displayed in Malaya.

European food stores were encouraged to feature U.S. food products.
Soybean oil sales were pushed in Japan, Italy, and Spain. U.S. dairy
products were promoted in Asia, Latin America, and wherever diets
displayed dairy product deficiencies.

Consumers in many lands learned that U.S. wheat makes delicious
doughnuts.

The versatility and attractiveness of cotton were emphasized all over
the world.

We were out to build markets. And we did. That's why we went
around the world — in 25 days.

"Blame It on f F w

Home is the sailor, home from the sea
Prices are falling; blame it on <C B"

The bubble had burst again. Hog prices as of mid-November had
dropped from the August figure of $20 to $16.70, and corn from $1.23
to $1.01 per bushel. And farm production expenses had risen — up
nearly $800,000,000 for the year.

This was all the excuse the critics needed. The sharp dip in prices
was trumpeted through the Midwest. Nothing would satisfy them but
my political execution. Again, it was "Benson must go,"

During our three weeks* absence they had worked feverishly to build
sentiment for my removal. Worse, I was informed that rumors were
circulating to make it appear that the Church was pressing for my
resignation — ostensibly to have me return to Church service — but, actu-
ally to get me off the political firing line where, they said, I had become

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 373

an impediment to the Church's mission. Nothing could have been more
false, more unfair, or more cutting to me personally.

Between November 16 and the end of the month I had a good many
sleepless nights. Was it worth continuing the fight against such tactics?
Was I perhaps merely rationalizing my position? Was I a liability to the
President and my party after all?

I wanted, of course, to do what was best for the country, for the
President, and for the party. But what was best? It was one thing to
resign of one's own volition and quite another to quit under pressure.
To allow myself to be forced out would be an admission that our
f aim program had failed. Would it open the door to the further erosion
of farm freedom?

On Friday, November 22, at the first Cabinet meeting after my re-
turn from abroad, the President and Cabinet extended a most cordial
welcome. I took this as tangible evidence that they wanted me to con-
tinue. Later that afternoon Jack Martin of the White House staff
called and asked if he could come to my office. When he arrived,
Martin urged me to resist vigorously any and all pressures to resign.
"Pay no attention," he said, "irrespective of whom they came from,
outside of the President himself." He was vehement. I made no com-
mitment.

The next day a group of the He-Coons came in. They also made a
strong and unanimous recommendation that I reject all thought of
leaving the Cabinet. It touched and embarrassed me to hear these
trusted friends refer to my services as a "symbol of freedom and in-
tegrity which must not be sacrificed," But again I made no firm com-
mitment. I just didn't know what to do. I needed time.

There followed some ten days of soul-searching and prayerful con-
sideration, intermingled with a full round of activity. Everything I did,
everywhere I went, seemed to put the question to me— which is right,
to stay and fight on in a cause in which conceivably I had outlived my
usefulness, or to return to the sphere in which I knew lay my true
vocation?

Was it plain stubbornness that made me reluctant to quit? On the
other hand was it personal hurt over the unfairness of the latest attack
that swayed me so strongly toward Utah . . .

On Sunday, November 24, I attended a service at the First Baptist
Church of the Church World Service. Much stress was placed upon the
need for food in many parts of the world and what the sharing of our
abundance through the P.L. 480 program could mean to so many
millions of the world's malnourished, especially the children.

374 CROSS FIRE

As I listened a thought insisted: Surely, here is one area in which
much remains to do. During that week at a dinner with the policy
staff, it was impressed on me again how much was still to be accom-
plished.

Happily, there were moments of relief. In mid-week, I was a guest at a
luncheon given by Vice President Nixon in honor of Mohammed V,
Sultan of Morocco. I sat between the Sultan and his Minister of
Finance and we talked with as much animation as was possible through
interpreters. The Sultan asked, "How many children have you?" I told
him six and asked through the interpreter "And how many have you?"

"Two," he said.

I said we had two sons and four daughters. When the interpreter
translated this for the Sultan, he looked surprised. Then, he said with a
broad smile, "I have four daughters too, besides my two sons." In
some of the Moslem countries, it is customary to number only sons when
one is asked about his children.

After we talked about our families, we discussed agriculture and
food. And somehow this conversation, too, brought vividly to mind
thoughts of the tremendous task remaining before us if we were to use
our abundance in the best interests of our nation, the advancement
of freedom and the benefit of all humanity.

Thursday, November 28, was Thanksgiving Day. We spent it at
home having as our guests a service man and his wife and two other
servicemen. Following a delicious dinner which had been prepared al-
most entirely by Beverly, all of us went to the recreation room for singing
and games. Here again were reminders of our abundance in a world
full of need.

On Friday, a White House session on agricultural legislative matters
was conducted by the Vice President, during which we reached tenta-
tive conclusions regarding a legislative program for 1958, But I was
inconclusive about the future. Should I stay and fight or would the
program have a better chance under other leadership?

The weekend was spent largely in Church work in and around Wash-
ington. Two of my associates in the Council of the Twelve of the Church,
Mark E. Peterson and Marion G. Romney, were in the city for special
Church duties. At my earnest request, they gave me the benefit of their
prayers and advice that my decision would be in accordance with the
Lord's will.

On Monday, December 2, I had lunch with Les Arends of Illinois,
the Minority Whip of the House. After a review of our legislative pro-
gram, he gave the proposals a wholehearted and enthusiastic endorse-

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 375

ment. I began to hope that if this Congressman from the heart of the
Midwest took such a firm position, others in our party might perhaps
become inclined to do likewise.

Encouraging, too, was a letter which Senator Barry Goldwater of
Arizona had sent to the President, with a copy to me. In part it read:

I would like to join the Secretary's many friends in urging that you
retain him and, if possible, increase the splendid backing you have always
given him.

It should be perfectly obvious to every farmer in America that the New
Deal-Fair Deal farm program will not work and that the sound policies
advocated by Secretary Benson that will eventually return agriculture to
the sensible controls of the law of supply and demand with a minimum of
government interference is a sound road to follow.

I have great faith in Mr. Benson, in his principles, in his honesty and
in his devotion to his job, and I hope that he continues to serve us in that
capacity.

On December 3, I held a news conference in a packed room.

"You have heard, and I have heard, much speculation in recent
weeks on whether the Secretary of Agriculture is a political asset or
liability. I have been told this: 'What you say may be true, but then YOU
don't have to be elected/ I have heard it said that 'Benson is basically
right on the farm facts, but dead wrong politically .' "

Laws which try to set farm prices and control production, I pointed
out, would not cure the farm problem. "If they could, then it would
have been cured two wars ago — four Secretaries of Agriculture ago —
back in the early days of the New Deal . • ."

The farm program of the past, I continued, had merely encouraged
surpluses and put agriculture deeper in the hole.

"My personal plans are to continue as Secretary of Agriculture. In
September the President asked me to stay on. I agreed to do so. Noth-
ing that I know of has come up to change this understanding. . . .

"I do not propose for the sake of political expediency to run the risk
of destroying the very family farm we set out to save. And, personally,
I do not believe one bit that telling the truth ever hurt any political
party. I intend to continue to tell the truth.

"There will be great opportunities for statesmanship in the next session
of Congress. To those who rise to this need, both fanners and the Na-
tion will be forever grateful. And I will do everything in my power to
contribute toward a good climate for statesmanship."

Temporarily this quieted the hubbub but it produced interesting re-
actions. A decent boldness, it is said, wins friends.

The United States sent its first earth satellite into
orbit from Cape Canaveral, Florida. Transatlantic
jet airliner passenger service was inaugurated.

Nationalism became rampant in Africa; revo-
lution and counter-revolution swept the Middle
East with U. S. Marines going into Lebanon at the
request of Lebanese President Camille Chamoun.
Power politics brought tension to the Orient when
the Chinese Reds heavily shelled the islands of
Quemoy and Matsu. Khrushchev succeeded Bul-
ganin as Chairman of the Soviet Council of Min-
isters. Charles de Gaulle became Premier and Pres-
ident of France. Pope Pius XII died and was
succeeded by Pope John XXIIL

Tension over West Berlin continued.

As for me, IQ58 was, like Caesar's Gaul, di-
vided largely into three parts: farm, home, and
politics.

1958

31

"Agin Every One of Them"

It is rather humbling to realize that one's esteem in the eyes of some of
his fellow citizens rises or falls with the prices of beef and hogs, or of
wheat and corn.

People have a habit of blaming agriculture's problems on, and
crediting its successes to, public personalities and public programs. Ac-
cording to this theory, the rising prices and general prosperity resulting
from World War II proved the soundness of the farm programs and
the competence of the Secretaries. FDR and Truman, as well as Sec-
retaries Wickard, Anderson, and Brannan, were not at all backward
about taking credit for this farm prosperity. However, though some men
were ready to take credit for the high farm prices during the war, I
never recall any of these wanting to take credit for the war which caused
the high prices. Perhaps they really believed that they and their pro-
grams were responsible.

Though I knew when accepting the post that I was in for a period
of tough sledding until agriculture could get rid of the wartime pro-
duction incentives and adjust to the disappearance of wartime markets
and stabilize its prices, I must confess I didn't expect to become quite
so "popular" a whipping boy as it turned out. Let prices fall or stay
low and I was in trouble. In prevailing on the President to veto an un-
sound farm bill, I became "the worst Secretary" of all time. Whenever
an election was in the oflfing, from twelve to six months ahead, the
clamor arose anew for me to step down. On the other hand, when
farm prices and income went up, there was apt to be speculation
about my availability for higher office.

My popularity was at ebb tide in 1953 when farm prices — especially

380 CROSS FIRE

beef cattle — were steadily dropping, just before the veto of the 1956
farm bill, during the late fall of 1957, and now again as the curtain
rose on 1958,

The New Year began with the usual flurry: wooing the Congress,
preparing our portion of the President's Congressional Message, plan-
ning testimony on the legislative and budgetary program; and filling
the usual speech invitations.

This year, however, the very first order of business was a "command
performance," or rather a command attendance, at Walter Reed Army
Hospital.

Just before the end of 1957, the President learned that I had not
taken my annual physical check-up. He gave me a slightly disgusted
look and without more ado made an appointment for me himself. On
Thursday, January 2, at 8 a.m., grumbling a little at being "shang-
haied," I arrived at Walter Reed for tests. The doctors decided that the
full series would not be necessary, so that afternoon found me back at
my desk in the USDA.

The rest of that day and the two that followed I spent talking on the
telephone to returning Congressmen, holding staff meetings, attending
Cabinet and devoting six hours on Saturday to making the rounds of
the Senate Oifice Building paying my respects to the Senators.

On January 7, Charlie Halleck came for lunch. I wanted to get
Halleck's view of the prospects for action on our 1958 program. An
expert political strategist, a hard in-fighter and a loyal party leader,
Charlie is courageous and outspoken, and a good man to have running
interference. After I reviewed the proposed legislative program with
him, I was greatly encouraged to receive his wholehearted approval.

Early the next day the Republican members of the House Agriculture
Committee met in my office for a conference on the farm legislative
program for 1958.

I summed up the progress of the past five years:

The adoption of a flexible price support program.

The inauguration of a highly successful endeavor to rebuild foreign
markets through Public Law 480, and a stronger Foreign Agricultural
Service.

Close cooperation with the domestic food industry to build up agri-
cultural markets at home.

Greater emphasis on research and education.

Establishment of the Soil Bank and, especially, the Conservation Re-
serve.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 381

A Rural Development Program to help those rural people who had
for so long been the forgotten segment of agriculture.

Setting up a Great Plains Program to stabilize the agriculture of the
thirteen Plains States.

Improvement in the conservation and wise use of our soil and water
resources.

In view of the facts that after 1954 the Congress had been dominated
by the Democrats and that even our first Congress was but narrowly
Republican, these were quite remarkable achievements.

In quantitative terms, you might say we had finished about half
the job. The hole through which the surpluses had been pouring in was
about half -closed. But we knew this only postponed the day of reckon-
ing. The free enterprise agricultural ship would not sink as rapidly if
our progress stopped here, but sink it inevitably would.

Unless we were able to do more, we would end up losing all the gains
thus far made.

There was a limit, however, to how fast we could go. Legislative
struggles are exhausting. You need a breathing spell to reassess the situa-
tion and regroup your forces. This is dictated in part by psychology.
One of the factors most frequently overlooked in the Washington scene,
by those on the outside, is the importance of the human element. Having
gone through a knock-down and drag-out battle one year, in which
both sides have been temporarily exhausted, you just can't march back
up Capitol Hill the next year and start a fresh fight all over again —
that is, you can't if you've won. To do so is to risk having both your
supporters and your opponents say, in effect, "We gave you legislation
last year. Give it a chance to work. Don't come up here every year ask-
ing more and more."

This explained in part why our future recommendations had been
completely bottled up in 1957.

Now, however, with a year's respite behind us, we had to push for-
ward.

So here we were holding this conference with the House Republicans
to talk over what to do, and how and why.

While these Republicans as a whole still refused to look squarely at
the real problems facing agriculture, they did admit that morning, for
the first time, that the old program had failed. But when it came to
supporting a further modification of the law in the direction of greater
freedom and less government controls, their courage collapsed. With
some shaking of heads, they said the President should not be urged to

382 GROSS FIRE

recommend widening the price support range "during an election
year." It would be fighting the right battle at the wrong time.

Again our work was cut out for us. Another fight in Congress. But I
was convinced we should, and must, make it — win or lose.

The following week the Republican members of the Senate Agricul-
ture Committee came to my office for a similar conference and again
the reception was much the same. Some of these Senators had crawled
far out on the limb of political expediency. Now the tree was shaking
and they were quaking. It was dangerous to stay out, but too humiliat-
ing to crawl back.

Much more encouraging than these fellow Republicans was Senator
Clinton Anderson, who called that day. Farmers, he said, were about
ready to give up price supports as currently provided; they wanted,
instead, a storage and loan program more on the order of that originally
provided in the 1930s. "I'd like to get together with you to talk about
this sometime soon," he said.

The next morning brought shocking news. August H. Andresen,
ranking minority member of the House Agricultural Committee and
dean of the Minnesota delegation with thirty-one years in the House, was
dead. Although Andresen had not always seen eye to eye with me on
farm programs, we had been working together fairly well in recent years.
His passing saddened me; he would be missed both as a friend and on
the Committee.

The Republican leadership on the House Ag Committee would now
fall to William S. Hill of Colorado, a kindly, white-haired seventy-two-
year-old Congressman in his seventeenth year as a representative. Bill,
a one time county agriculture agent had, up to this point, taken a ques-
tionable attitude toward the program. I went up to his office for a heart-
to-heart talk. After a solid hour's reviewing the farm situation and the
need for the Administration's program, he still remained rather non-
committal. I told him that a great deal depended on his leadership —
"without it, we might as well forget about trying for new legislation in

1958."

Later that day I arranged for a conference at the White House among
Hill, Sherman Adams, and myself; and I also got Charlie Shuman, head
of the Farm Bureau, on the telephone so that he and the Congressman
could talk.

It took a good deal of persuasion but Bill Hill finally agreed to go all-
out in support of the Administration's program and to take along with
him as many other Congressmen as he could influence.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 383

Two days later, on January 16, the President sent to the Congress, for
the third time, another special message on the whole agricultural pro-
gram.

It asked for three types of action:

1. A bigger Rural Development Program to aid farmers whose acre-

ages were so small that they got little or no benefit from price sup-
port.

2. A broadened surplus disposal program to expand farm products and

increased research to find new uses for farm products.

3. Relaxed acreage controls to give farmers more freedom to produce,

accompanied by lower price supports that would enable their prod-
ucts to sell more readily in competitive marketing.

It was in the third request that the trouble would come.

Here is what we were asking:

We wanted the Conservation Reserve Program of the Soil Bank to be
expanded and the costly Acreage Reserve Program terminated after the
1958 crop. The Acreage Reserve had always been intended as a "crash
program" to get quick short-term results. Now we thought it wise to
shift emphasis within the Soil Bank to the long-term approach of the
Conservation Reserve.

We asked for authority to increase acreage allotments for cotton,
wheat, rice, peanuts, and tobacco. Allotments for some of these crops
had become so small that they crippled farming efficiency. About four
out of five cotton allotments were less than 15 acres. The average burley
tobacco allotment was one acre. That's right, the average farmer grow-
ing burley tobacco was allowed to plant one acre.

We urged elimination of acreage allotments for corn. Most corn
farmers simply could not afford to restrict themselves to their allotments
and they were not doing so.

Obviously, however, to remove some of the acreage controls would
simply result in bigger surpluses — unless the price support legislation
was further changed so that more products would be bought in the free
market rather than move into government warehouses. Consequently,
once more, as in 1957 we asked for elimination of the "escalator clauses"
and a widening of the over-all range within which price supports could
be provided. The range of 75 to 90 per cent of parity — which we had
won in the Agricultural Act of 1954 — did not permit our crops to
gain new markets fast enough to absorb the increasing production.
These prices were still freezing some of our crops out of their potential

384 CROSS FIRE

markets. Increased acreage and a wider range of price support logically
had to go together.

The message got a good reception from the press, a fairly good one
from many members of the Congress, but a steely eye from the Demo-
cratic members of the Senate Agricultural Committee before whom I
appeared next day. This turned out to be a hectic, poorly planned,
poorly executed hearing, especially for a Senate Committee where the
standards of courtesy are high.

Under the usual procedure a witness reads or gives his testimony
without any or at most few interruptions; then he is quizzed by the
members.

This time Senator Ellender permitted a complete departure from this
routine. He ruled that Committee members could break in on my
presentation whenever they felt I made a statement which they con-
sidered to be "not the facts. 59

It turned the hearing into a Senatorial circus.

My prepared text ran 24 pages. The heckling began before I'd finished
page one. The morning session ran from 10 o'clock until 12:30. It took
most of the two and a half hours to get through the first four pages of
my text. Ellender called some of my statements "inaccurate." Hubert
Humphrey said of one part, "The Federal Trade Commission would
rule it out as false advertising."

That pricked enough so that I shot back, "There's nothing false about
it."

When I cited official USDA figures showing that "prices received
by farmers were 3 per cent above a year ago," Ellender jumped in
with the charge that I was not giving the other side of the picture.
Farmers' costs have risen, too, Ellender stoutly asserted.

That was true. There were several paragraphs on it on pages 3 and 4
of my statement.

When I declared that losses under the program to support farm prices
and income in 1957 totaled $3,250,000,000, Ellender came at me again.
If he had waited a moment, he'd have heard me read that this figure in-
cluded losses on some activities that "might have been undertaken en-
tirely apart from our surplus disposal operations"; also that part of
these costs "represent economic, military, and other activities abroad."
But the fuse had been lit and I didn't get that far before the fireworks
went off.

An Associated Press account of the hearing said:

"During the reading of his statement Benson was interrupted so

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 385

frequently that Sen. Spessard L. Holland (D-Fla.) suggested he be
given a chance to finish.

" 'Let's not impose on all of the rules of a fair hearing/ Holland said."
My daughter Beverly sat in on part of this hearing. She was greeted
by Chairman Ellender with a most gracious and friendly smile, to
which she responded in kind. After that greeting, however, any further
smiling on Beverly's part, or Senator Ellender's (or mine for that mat-
ter) would have been strictly for the record. It was too bad that Beverly
had to see some of the Senators at something approaching their worst,
but this too could be chalked up to her education.

The Conservative magazine, National Review, ran an editorial that
month entitled, "The War on Secretary Benson." The Review took the
opinion that I was definitely on the way out, either by way of a "re-
quested resignation" or outright firing.

There was, said the Review, "the most unseemly of campaigns in the
Farm Belt to 'get Ezra.'

"No doubt 'Ezra' will be 'got.' . . ."

The editorial predicted very low prices for corn and hogs around
Election Day, 1958, and concluded, "If the Republicans haven't sacri-
ficed Ezra Benson by then, they will certainly do it long before i960."

Not everyone, even in the ranks of the Democrats, it should be noted,
shared this dim view of my future.

Congressman Harlan Hagen, a forty-three-year-old Democrat from a
California farming district and a member of the House Agriculture
Committee, wrote me a long letter that same month in which the fol-
lowing interesting paragraph appeared: "I would quarrel with those
who regard you as a political liability to the Republican Party of which
I am not a member. It is my feeling that every attack on 90% of parity
which might lose one farm vote will gain at least ij4 urban votes or
votes in farm groups which do not enjoy that kind of a program."

Voices like Hagen's lacked a sounding board and the outlook did
seem a bit dark. I sometimes wondered whether even Lloyd's of London
would have insured me at all against the eventuality predicted by the
National Review,

Partly, my troubles stemmed from what some of the Midwest Repub-
licans interpreted as an unwarranted act of stubbornness. In 1954, you
will recall, we had lowered price supports on dairy products to 75 per
cent of parity. In 1956, concurrent with his veto of the farm bill mon-
strosity, the President had raised dairy supports on manufacturing milk

386 CROSS FIRE

and butter to above 80 per cent of parity. In 1957, we retained the sup-
ports at this level. Though our large but costly surplus disposal program
had succeeded in greatly reducing the government-held dairy stocks,
farmers were still producing more dairy products than the market would
take without such forced feeding by the government. The law specifically
required me to set dairy supports at a level that would call forth ade-
quate production. Who could doubt but that support at 75 per cent of
parity would result in adequate, and even some surplus, production?
Consequently, I had announced that the level of dairy support would be
reduced to 75 per cent of parity for the marketing year beginning
April 1, 1958.

This action, plus the President's farm message appealing anew for
the completion of our program, and indicating that the Administration
still clung to the principles I had been urging, led to a kind of amateur
Bastille Day among Midwest Republicans.

The newspapers and radio carried stories on Thursday, February 20,
of a secret meeting of some 20 Republican Congressmen to discuss
means of forcing my resignation. Meade Alcorn, head of the Republican
National Committee, Congressman Richard M. Simpson of Pennsylva-
nia, and Congressman Joe Martin of Massachusetts, it was said, had sat
in by invitation.

Next day Congressmen A. L. Miller of Nebraska and Walter H. Judd
of Minnesota came in on a matter of "great importance." Miller was
a sixty-five-year-old, gray-haired doctor and former schoolteacher who
had represented his district in Nebraska for about fifteen years. I had
gone into his state and campaigned for him in 1956.

Walter Judd, like Miller a fifteen-year veteran in the House, also a
doctor, and formerly a medical missionary in China, had always im-
pressed me as a highly intelligent and scholarly legislator, with a special
understanding and knowledge of the nature of communism and the
problems of the Far East. It was easy to guess why Miller wanted to see
me, but I puzzled over Judd's coming with him.

Claiming to represent the views of twenty Midwest Republican Con-
gressmen, Miller reported on the preceding day's meeting. These Con-
gressmen, he said, feared that they could not be re-elected in November,
if I continued as Secretary of Agriculture and we pushed forward with
the farm program.

While Miller breathed fire, Judd proved to be a rather reluctant
dragon. Averring that he supported the Administration's farm program
and me personally, he said he had come to my office solely in the role of
a representative of the group.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 387

"Can you," I asked them, "give me a list of the twenty Congressmen?"

Miller and Judd protested. Some of those at the meeting would not
want their names revealed, while others had spoken out in support of
the Administration^ program and of me; but the over-all sentiment had
been that I had best give up my post.

How could you grapple with such nebulous opposition?

"Gentlemen," I remarked, "Fve prepared a news release on this sub-
ject which Fve been contemplating making public. I have done this be-
cause my information has been that the group which you represent is
planning to issue a release." When my visitors protested that they did
not plan one, I said, "In the event that you do not give a story to the
press, I shall in all probability not release this either."

Later in the day, however, Congressman Miller talked to the press
and I thereupon gave out the release:

As Secretary of Agriculture, I will continue to pursue a course which I
believe is best for our fanners and fair to all of our people. I believe
farmers and all America want and are entitled to such a program.

As a member of the Republican party and a member of the Cabinet
in a Republican Administration, I went on, I was naturally concerned
about the political fortunes of my colleagues. But concern for political
fortunes of individuals could not transcend the very function of govern-
ment, which is to protect and to help its citizens,

I have a responsibility which I take seriously. As long as God gives me
the strength I shall continue to do all within my power to help our farmers
through this severe struggle to a better and brighter future. I am con-
vinced that the American people desire to see programs based on sound
principles in agriculture. And for that reason I shall continue to fight for
what I feel to be right.

That afternoon, at the White House, Sherman Adams said that the
Congressmen were pressing for a conference with President Eisenhower.
Determined to fight back I returned to the Department and made TV
and radio recordings to be broadcast on this issue.

All that weekend the political pot boiled vigorously. On Monday, I
met with the President briefly. He spoke out heatedly against the actions
of the Midwestern Congressmen and said that if he did agree to see them
it would be for the purpose of "giving them a good lecture."

At the close of the day I sent the President a note with several en-
closures pertinent to the issue.

Yes, I was endorsing myself.

Meantime, a significant batch of mail and telegrams had started to

388 CROSS FIRE

come to the Department, almost all of it urging me to stand my ground.
Among the unfavorable missives was one signed A. L. Miller. The
Congressman apparently resented my statement to the press. His ex-
tremely pointed letter, dated February 22, 1958, protested that he and
Congressman Judd had come to me "in all good faith and all kindness,
not seeking publicity" and it was the intention of a Republican group of
five or seven members to seek an audience with the President.

You will recall [he wrote], that I raised the question, and this was
difficult to do, to the effect that "the Boss would never demand your
resignation," but I was of the opinion that "if you presented to him the
views that Representative Judd and I presented to you and then offer
your resignation that it would be accepted," You stated "your resignation
was always on the desk of the President."

I would like to suggest, Sir, that after this Republican group, and it
will be enlarged to either five or seven members, present their views to the
President that you then again offer your resignation. I think you should
do it in all good faith and full understanding of the difficulties confronting
we who represent constituents in the farm area. There seems little doubt
among this group of men that your policies and your staying on as Secretary
of Agriculture will cause the defeat of 25 to 30 members of Congress. It may
prevent the election of others who ought to be helping to carry the views
of the administration.

I note in your release to the press, and I fear, Sir, you did not give our
views very "long or careful consideration," when you said "But concern
for political fortunes of individuals cannot transcend the very function of
government, which is to protect and to help its citizens. The Farm program
of this Administration is designed to help our American farmers in their
struggle to cope with the rapid changes in American agriculture," Surely,
Mr. Benson, after five years you must understand that the majority of
farmers do not feel that your program is designed to help them. I will not
go into all of the other arguments. I was only suggesting to you, Sir, that
after the complete views have been presented to the President that you
again submit your resignation. I think you owe it to the Republican Party,

Somehow I did not think this letter merited a reply.

On Tuesday, February 25, Sherman Adams telephoned to tell me
that Congressman Judd had withdrawn from the group of Midwestern
Congressmen and that the President did not plan to see them.

An interesting call from Senator Everett Dirksen filled in a few de-
tails. The President that morning, having raised with the Republican
legislative leaders, the question of these efforts to displace me, had ex-
hibited a great deal of emotional fervor in expressing his opposition.
Dirksen quoted the President as saying, "It is a sad commentary when
men like Secretary Benson, who stands for integrity and principle, are

18

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 389

asked to leave government because a few Congressmen refuse to support
a sound program and get themselves into political difficulty."

Later that day I met Jack Martin of the White House staff who added
still more to the account of what had taken place. Jack called the
President's performance "magnificent." He expressed the fear, however,
that at his news conference, scheduled for the next day, the President
might give vent to an excess of feeling.

Next day the President was asked about the furor. He said:

"Now, in the first place, so far as my immediate official family is
concerned, it is my responsibility to appoint them, select them, and the
only relationship that Congress has to that process is that the Senate
must give its advice and its consent to the appointment. Therefore, for
any group of Congressmen, either informally or formally, to raise a ques-
tion concerning my appointment to the Cabinet would not seem to be
in order."

The President then described again what the Administration sought
to do in its farm programs. He said he believed agriculture would be
better off the more we could free farmers from regulations and the more
they could participate in their own activities in the farming industry
under the general influence of economic forces that apply to the rest of
the economy.

He wound up by going all-out in a personal endorsement that
touched me deeply when I read it later. "I feel that Mr, Benson is a
man of acknowledged courage and honesty. By honesty, I don't mean
only his personal habits and practices. . . . When we find a man of this
dedication, this kind of courage, this kind of intellectual and personal
honesty, we should say to ourselves: 'We just don't believe that America
has come to the point where it wants to dispense with the services of that
kind of a person. 5 "

Congressman Miller did not agree. The next day, he renewed his de-
mand:

Honorable Ezra Benson
Secretary of Agriculture
Department of Agriculture
Washington 25, D.C.

My dear Mr. Benson:

On my recent visit to you with Dr. Judd, I suggested that after we had
visited the President that you, in all good faith, offer your resignation.

I was a little surprised that within an hour after the President came in
from Phoenix you were with him. We had not seen the President.

Today Mr. Weaver and I visited with the President. There will be other

390 CROSS FIRE

groups tomorrow and the first of the week. May I suggest again that after
these Republican members have had their conference with the President,
that you in all good faith offer your resignation as Secretary of Agriculture.
I am told by the press that while your resignation is no doubt with the
President, you have never actually offered that resignation and urged that
it be accepted.

I note this afternoon that while we were in conference with the Presi-
dent you also were holding a news conference. This conference was a de-
fensive move on your part.

The 30 Republican members of the 11 Midwest farm states are asking
that you present your resignation to the President. Will you do this?

Sincerely yours,

A. L. Miller, M.G.

Fourth District, Nebraska

My reply, I fear, was no less blunt. It read:

Dear Congressman Miller:

Thank you for your letters of February 2a and 27. I appreciate your
courtesy in discussing this further with me.

I assume that you would not be pursuing your opposition to me and
to the Administration's farm program so diligently if you did not feel that
you were serving the best interests of the Nation's farmers.

I, sir, am just as firmly convinced that the direction taken by the Admin-
istration's farm program is the best for the long-range interests of our farm
people. I believe further that most of them know this and favor such a
program.

Sincerely yours,
R T. Benson

This resolute resistance to alterations in the farm program and the
correlative idea that my tenure in the Cabinet held the fate of twenty-
five to thirty members of Congress reminded me of the New York
newspaper reporter who went up to Maine to interview a man on the
occasion of his one hundredth birthday. The reporter found the old
gentleman sitting in a chair on the porch with a cane in his hand,
looking out over the ocean with that faraway expression common to
the very old.

In beginning his interview, the reporter said pleasantly: "Sir, in your
one hundred years you must have seen a great many changes-"

"Yep," the old man snapped, "and I've been agin every dern one of
them."

32

The Cross-eyed Approach

The Democratic leaders backed by a few dissident Republicans had de*
cided to beat us to the punch. If they could by quick action report out
a bill and get it passed, they would in effect serve notice on the Adminis-
tration that our recommendations had very little chance of enactment.
This would either force another veto of a farm bill in an election year —
an action Presidents traditionally are loath to take — or it might well
result in a compromise.

On March 6, the Senate Agricultural Committee, by a vote of twelve
to three reported out a "freeze bill." All price supports would be frozen
at 1957 levels, regardless of changes in supply and demand. But this was
only the beginning. Corn acreage allotments would be increased by
16,000,000 acres — this at the very time that the government was spend-
ing millions of dollars to take corn out of production by means of the
Soil Bank. The committee also reported out a bill to permit a 30 per
cent increase in cotton allotments — again, while we were spending mil-
lions of dollars to take cotton out of production through the Soil Bank.
This was more than nearsighted; it was cross-eyed.

The House Committee, not to be outdone, took action on this same
day to freeze dairy price supports at the 1957 level, which would nullify
our announcement for dairy supports at the minimum of 75 per cent of
parity for the new marketing year beginning April 1, 1958.

Thoroughly disgusted, I issued a statement blasting these attempts to
solve economic problems by political pusillanimity —

"This action is unsound and if sustained would do serious damage to
our farm people and to all America. . . .

"Our problem is not one of freezing agriculture in uneconomic pat-

392 CROSS FIRE

terns but of freeing the farmer to allow him to adjust to the rapidly
changing farm economy.

That day among my visitors was a man who knew a thing or two
about government regulation: the new Ambassador from the Soviet Un-
ion, Mikhail Menshikov. We had an amiable conversation, couched in
general terms so far as agricultural policy was concerned. We talked
more about our children and grandchildren and other more or less per-
sonal affairs than we did about agriculture.

After Menshikov had gone, I remarked to one of my associates, "It
seems out of character, doesn't it, that such a congenial person should
be representing such a godless, murderous, cold and forbidding govern-
ment?"

And then I thought further. But no stranger than that many members
in our Congress who represent a nation founded upon principles of
freedom should be seeking to impose programs on our farmers which,
if successful, would inevitably lead to more and more controls on them.
And isn't it strange, too, that whereas reports from Russia indicate that
they have been temporarily forced to extend a little freedom to their
farmers to help solve their agricultural problems, our opponents in this
country would have us move away from freedom and toward more
state control?

This was the first of several visits with Ambassador Menshikov at vari-
ous social functions as well as a couple of times at my office. Though
these encounters always proved pleasant, I felt that the Soviet Ambas-
sador too studiously avoided discussion of serious questions, whether
involving agriculture or the basic differences between the free and the
Communist worlds. For this reason, despite his personality, Menshikov
did not inspire confidence in me, but left me feeling that he had hidden
his real purposes behind a very personable fagade. His visit but empha-
sized that the Communists are unmoral, and as they have indicated,
agreements to them are like pie crust — made to be broken. We made no
agreements.

Senator Edward J, Thye responded to my blast against the freeze
approach of the Senate Agricultural Committee by sending me this
telegram:

THE PRESIDENT, THE ADMINISTRATION, THE CONGRESS, BUSINESS
AND LABOR ARE ALL TAKING ACTION TO BRING AN END TO THE

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 393

PRESENT TEMPORARY RECESSION AND TO CREATE A MORE FAVOR-
ABLE BUSINESS CLIMATE AND ATMOSPHERE.

YOUR ACTION TO REDUCE DAIRY SUPPORTS AND OTHER AGRICUL-
TURE COMMODITY SUPPORTS IS DIRECTLY OPPOSED TO THESE AT-
TEMPTS TO STRENGTHEN THE NATIONS ECONOMY. YOUR UN-
WARRANTED ATTACK UPON CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES IS NOT
THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTIVE ACTION WHICH WILL ASSIST IN SOLV-
ING OUR ECONOMIC PROBLEMS.

LOWER FARM PRICES ARE CLOSELY RELATED TO THE OTHER PROB-
LEMS OF REDUCED CONSUMER BUYING. I URGE YOU TO PUT PER-
SONAL CONSIDERATIONS ASIDE AT THIS TIME AND TAKE CON-
STRUCTIVE ACTION TO MAINTAIN SUPPORTS AT PRESENT LEVELS.
BY SO DOING, YOU WILL EXPRESS THE DESIRE TO COOPERATE
WITH THE ADMINISTRATION IN SOLVING CURRENT ECONOMIC
PROBLEMS.

My letter in reply pointed out that laws which attempt to fix farm
prices and control farm production had not solved the basic agricultural
problem, and my stating this "historical fact" should not be construed as
an attack upon Congressional committees. My letter concluded with
these paragraphs:

I shall never support a program unless I believe in my heart that it is in
the best interests of farmers.

Certainly no personal considerations were involved in the dairy support
decision. It would be far more pleasant for me personally if I could stand
side by side with my friends in Congress and work with them in support
of sound, constructive, long range farm legislation such as the Admin-
istration has proposed.

I am sorry I cannot in good conscience give you the answer you seek,
but will continue to welcome and evaluate carefully your suggestions.

On March 11, I met with the President and the legislative leaders at
the White House for about an hour and a half. We agreed to stand pat
against the freeze bill. In the presence of the group, the President said
to me in effect: "You know I'm in your corner on this whole matter."

Two days later, however, despite yeoman service by Senator Everett
Dirksen, our leader in the floor fight, the Senate approved the freeze bill
50 to 43.

Now to the House where as before the outlook was far from encourag-
ing. The day before the freeze bill was to come before the House for
debate, Congressmen Joe Martin and Bill Hill met with the President,
two members of the White House staff, and me. The Congressmen

394 CROSS FIRE

mentioned that the Republican Policy Committee had asked them to ap-
proach the President and me to see if we would be willing to modify our
position on the level of price support on dairy products.

They argued that a softening of our stand might be used as a bargain-
ing point to build opposition to the freeze bill. The President looked at
me and again, for the umpteenth time, I had to say no.

e T sympathize with your position," I said, "but to backtrack would
lose us far more than it would gain. We've set the support level in good
faith. Based on all the available statistics, there is no question but that
the support level should be where we have set it. We cannot honestly
make another finding. If we did, it would be a purely political decision
and it would surely be interpreted as such. I feel it would be legally and
economically wrong — and in the long run, politically wrong too. We
can't repudiate everything we've said up to this time, and hold the
respect of either our friends or our opponents. Only yesterday the Presi-
dent spoke out strongly against the principles of the freeze bill in his
address before 1700 Republican women. How can you ask him to
reverse himself today?"

The President supported me.

Both at this conference and later in the day in several telephone
conservations, I had the impression that we were not getting the leader-
ship we hoped for in the House. There seemed to be a disposition to let
Republicans vote as they pleased on this issue without much encourage-
ment to stand up for the Administration.

In view of this rather dismal outlook, I determined to keep the Presi-
dent fully informed on what acceptance of the freeze bill would mean.
On March 18, 1958, I sent him a letter summarizing the arguments.

March 18, 1958
Dear Mr. President:

In considering any changes in our current policy these facts might be
kept in mind.

1. The Freeze Bill abandons the parity concept.

2. The Freeze Bill was reported out by the Senate Committee without
hearings, without a record, and without an opportunity for the farm
organizations to testify.

3. The freeze takes us in two directions at the same time. The Senate
recently appropriated $250 million additional to take acreage out of
production and now proposes to increase acreage above what it other-
wise would be.

4. Support of the freeze would be a complete reversal of your recom-
mendations to the Congress and what this Administration has stood
for from the beginning.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 395

5. The Senate leadership, particularly Senator Dirksen, went all out in
opposition to the freeze in the Senate.

6. To single out and modify our position on dairy supports would cost
us far more votes than it would gain. It would be interpreted as a
political maneuver and would repudiate everything that we have said
up to this time in support of the need for the action below.

7. The AFBF, largest and most effective farm organization, is opposed

to the freeze and in full support of the action taken on dairy supports.

There are, of course, many other reasons why this legislation is bad:
it would further destroy markets, pile up additional surpluses, increase
the cost of farm programs, freeze the transition to modern parity, be unfair
to wheat growers who signed up in the Soil Bank, and perpetuate meas-
ures already proven ineffective.

Bad farm legislation should not be continued for one day longer than
necessary. This proposal should be defeated and we should continue our
effort toward sound new legislation*

With warm regard,

As ever,

Ezra Taft Benson

The President must have been deeply concerned about the outlook
because two days later he replied in a long and thoughtful letter, which
exemplified his rare qualities as a political leader.

He said he wanted to give me some of his thinking about legislative
procedures. "I tliink my text could well be the old German aphorism,
'Never lose the good in seeking too long for the best, 3 or as some say it,
The best is always the enemy of the good. 3 "

He said he had been impressed by the apparent attitude of some of
the legislative leaders. While they claimed to be for the flexible price sup-
port system, they believed that the Administration now stood guilty of
inflexibility. A number of Republican Congressmen, he said, had been
advised by other influential Republicans to run for the Congress on
their own individual platforms, repudiating completely items of the
Administration programs that they didn't like.

There are often considerable differences, he pointed out, at any one
time, between the political thinking of the country and the political
actions taken by the Congress.

If this trend toward "political individualism 53 continued, the result
would be that the most vitally important legislative measures for the
long term good of the United States would be weakened or defeated, and
Republican strength badly damaged.

Recognizing that for five years we had been working hard to get
Federal programs affecting American agriculture on a sounder basis, and
had succeeded, he said we should observe that never in any one year

39^ CROSS FIRE

had we gotten exactly what we wanted, and that even when we first
got some flexibility in farm prices, we had to take it on a step by step
basis.

It is not good Congressional politics, he continued, to fail to listen
seriously to the recommendations of our own Congressional leaders.
From time to time, we had to make what they considered necessary
concessions.

"Sometimes in the workings of a democratic society, it is not sufficient
merely to be completely right. We recall that Aristides lost the most im-
portant election of his life because the Athenian people were tired of
hearing him called The Just,' "

He concluded by saying he could see no way in which I could logically
take action at this time that our best Congressional friends would con-
sider as an amelioration of their legislative difficulties. But in future
planning we should avoid advanced positions of inflexibility, leaving
some room for maneuver, otherwise we would suffer for it.

This little treatise on political strategy may have given me a mild
spanking, but it was so obviously well intended, I could not resent his
giving it.

March 20 was voting day. Much of it I spent on the Hill, in an effort
to build up as much opposition as possible to the freeze. In the final vote,
the bill passed 210 to 172.

Though we lost, I was pleased that our Republican strength stood up
as well as it did. It had been confidently predicted that the bill would
pass by a two-thirds majority. So now, once again, it was up to the Presi-
dent.

Sherman Adams called from the White House next day — the pressure
was strong, he said, from some Republicans in Congress and others out-
side urging that the President sign the bill. With all the force I could
command, I told Adams it would be a "terrible mistake from every
angle" to allow this bill to become law. It would be throwing in the
towel. We could get along far better without legislation than we could
if we had to live with this bill.

With the President's consent, we began to prepare a suggested draft of
a veto message. Somehow a report got into the press that I had said I
would resign if the President signed the bill. This was untrue. To the
best of my knowledge, I have never said at any time that I would resign
if the President failed to follow my recommendation on any bill.

At noon on Monday, March 31, the President sent his veto to the
Congress. "It is regrettable," he stated, "that for the second time in two

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 397

years the Congress has sent me a farm bill which I cannot in good
conscience approve."

Pointing out the sad consequences that would result if this bill became
law, the President said:

"This Resolution would fix farm price supports and farm acreage
allotments at not less than existing levels. The true need is to relate both
price- supports and acreage allotments to growing market opportunities.

"With regard to government controls, what the farm economy needs
is a thaw rather than a freeze."

Renewing his request that legislation such as he had recommended in
his agricultural message in January be adopted, the President's veto
concluded:

"To meet the rapidly changing condition in agriculture, farmers must
be able to make their own management decisions on their own farms.
They must not have their production and prices frozen in an outmoded
pattern. They must not be made the captives of a restricted history; they
must be given freedom to build a brighter future. This can be done if
farmers and those who serve them will team up in support of sound
legislative and administrative action,"

There was never any question that this veto would, or could, be over-
ridden. The votes in Senate and House alike had been much too close.
Majority Leader Senator Lyndon Johnson left for Texas the same day
the veto went up. The issue would not be revived until after the Easter
recess in mid-April, if at all.

Todays Hero — Tomorrow's Heel

That spring the USD A and the Department of the Interior became in-
volved in a difference of opinion that finally reached the Cabinet and
eventually the President. Fred Seaton, the Secretary of Interior, had
gone before a Senate Committee to urge passage of a "Domestic Minerals
Stabilization Plan." We first learned of it in April when the Depart-
ment of Interior sent us an explanation of this proposal and invited us
to attend a meeting in the Secretary's Conference Room at the Interior
Building.

The proposal was nothing more nor less than a Brannan Plan for
minerals. It would have established artificial price levels for copper,
lead, zinc, certain fluorspar, and tungsten. When prices actually re-
ceived by producers fell below these levels, the difference would be made
up by direct payments from the government just as in the Brannan Plan
for agricultural commodities. But the minerals plan was even worse.

39^ CROSS FIRE

Unlike the Brannan proposal, it gave the producer no incentive to obtain
the best price he could in the market. He could sell at a price lower than
his competitors, knowing that the government would foot the bill. We
disliked several other features of the plan, but the major defect was that
it would deeply involve the government in the mining business in about
as undesirable a way as could be imagined.

Moreover, we saw at once that if this bill for minerals should pass, we
would immediately find ourselves hammered and pressured from all
directions by that hard core in the Congress and in agriculture that
had been and still was advocating a Brannan Plan for agriculture* Not
only would our struggle be made much more difficult; this might even be
the death knell of our hopes for constructive farm legislation in 1958,

Under Secretary True Morse sent a long letter to Secretary Seaton in
which he pointed out that:

Incentive and price support programs, once adopted, are difficult to
change and even harder to eliminate —

High price supports or tariffs tend to encourage domestic production
and limit the effectiveness of market prices in keeping the supply in line
with the current demand for the product —

Government purchase programs for minerals, as for agricultural prod-
ucts, in which the government guarantees to purchase production
offered to it at a specified price, may build up a stock or stockpile of
the product which will have future price depressing effects —

The total supply so acquired may far exceed desirable levels before the
program can be terminated.

I sent a letter to the President:

As you know, there have been many Democrat recommendations for
deficiency payments for agricultural commodities. We have followed a con-
sistent administration policy of opposition to these except in the special
case of wool. However, in our recent testimony before Congressional com-
mittees we have found difficulty in explaining the basic differences between
the proposal for the mining industry and similar proposals for agriculture.
This has given our opposition a point of attack at a time when the price
and income arguments were all in our favor.

A reply from the White House signed by Sherman Adams thanked
me for "giving me your judgment on the reaction in agricultural circles
to the Minerals Stabilization Plan," but made no commitment.

Meantime, Interior, obviously stung by our reference to a "Brannan
Plan for minerals/' came back strongly. The opening paragraph of
Interior's communication read: "To call the Minerals Stabilization Plan

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 399

a 'Brannan Plan 5 for minerals is the same as calling an apple an orange
because they are both round or because they both grow on trees."

To this I replied immediately in a letter to Secretary Seaton : ". . . the
major feature of the Brannan Plan was the deficiency payment; this is
also the major feature of the Minerals Stabilization Plan."

Shortly after this the President sent me a two-page letter in which he
agreed with many of the points I had made but concluded by saying:
"In relation to all the factors involved, the Minerals Plan seemed to me
to be the best of the alternative courses of action available."

We had now made our views known at the highest level of govern-
ment. Frankly, it amazed me that a program of such importance and
one that could affect the future of other programs outside of the mineral
field could have gained so much Administration support without our
being tuned in on it earlier. Whether we had deliberately been kept in
the dark by Interior, I don't know, but certainly no effort had been
made to inform us until the whole thing had progressed very far. It
really bothered me that this bill had not yet been before the Cabinet.

Of one thing I was sure: If this bill were passed the Administration
and the country would long regret it.

The Brannan Plan for minerals never became law. A substantial part
of the blame or credit for its defeat was laid at my door. To some, it
appeared that I was making a grave error in fighting this bill. After all,
my native state of Idaho and adopted state of Utah are both important
states in the production of minerals. It was considered "poor politics"
for a man with this background to oppose a subsidy for elements so
important to the income of these two states.

Maybe so. On the other hand, the basic rule was still there to follow,
dented but readable: In the long run, what is right is the best politics.

If I hadn't already known the discouraging correlation between the
level of farm prices and my level of popularity, I could not have over-
looked it after the May 1 hearing before the House Agricultural Com-
mittee. Only this time it was in my favor.

Between January and the end of April, the general level of farm
prices rose 6 per cent. Farm prices in March, April and May of 1958
averaged 10 per cent above those months of 1957* Prices of meat ani-
mals, poultry and eggs, fruits and vegetables, cotton and feed grains, all
were up or rising.

A rather clear postwar pattern of farm production had developed. A
sudden spurt in output would be followed by a production plateau for
two or three years; then another spurt and another plateau. Such

^00 CROSS FIRE

spurts occurred in 1948, 1952, 1955, and now a new one was gathering
in 1958.

This pattern, of course, was reflected in prices received for farm
products, each spurt in production being quickly followed by falling
prices. Then as prices stabilized or strengthened during the plateau,
agriculture seemed to gather its energies for another forward lunge in
production.

At this point, in the spring of 1958, with farm output over-all hav-
ing been on a plateau for three years, hog prices were at $21.10 per
hundredweight, compared with $18.50 in January 1958 and $17.40
in May 1957. Beef had jumped from $16,90 in May 1957 to $19.70
in January 1958, and to $23.10 in May. The price of corn rose from
93 cents in January 1958 to $1.15 in May. Milk was the only major
commodity for which prices had seriously declined since the first of the
year. Yet, though this hearing before the House Committee was on
pending dairy legislation, the change in the attitude of the Committee
struck me as almost unbelievable. Not one critical or unkind word was
uttered; rather, the members went out of their way to commend my
testimony and almost overwhelmed me with kind words in their per-
sonal greetings.

Having gone into the room prepared to refute all sorts of arguments
and opposition, I was called on to meet not one of the problems antici-
pated.

Back in the Department later that day I said that this may be a lull
before the next storm. Let's bear in mind that the hour of our success
may bring our greatest danger.

To my utter and complete surprise — actually, almost consternation
— I now found myself being suddenly propelled to a position of political
leadership in the Republican Party.

In the course of a regular news conference, Claude Mahoney of the
Mutual Broadcasting System startled me by asking, "Since you are
the member of the Cabinet most often commended by Mr. Eisenhower,
have you ever thought of running?"

The fact is several persons had approached me privately and one or
two items had appeared in the press referring to me as a possible leader
of the conservative wing of the Republican Party and therefore a po-
tential candidate for elective office. Up to that day in May, it had been
relatively easy to turn these comments aside, treating them as purely
speculative and unworthy of serious consideration. I sensed now,
however, that there was more than mere curiosity behind Mahoney's
question. My first impulse was to spike it and spike it hard; but ham-

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 4OI

mering out an answer might serve only to emphasize the question. So I
laughed, "No sir, that is not one of my worries" — and turned to the next
questioner.

(But I couldn't help recalling another news conference some ten
weeks before, just after Miller and Judd had come to my office, when I
was asked: "It has been said by several members of the Congress, the Re-
publicans from the Midwest, that if you remain in office it may cost the
Party from twenty to thirty seats. Do you regard yourself, sir, as a
liability to that extent, or at all?")

Now in May my thought was, "What a difference a couple of dollars
in the prices of hogs and cattle make."

My new-found popularity did not mean, however, that our opponents
had decided to give up. Instead, they fell back on the favorite political
dodge of those in difficulty: compromise. In mid-June the House Agri-
culture Committee reported out an Omnibus Bill. While they baited it
with several of our recommendations, these poorly concealed the es-
sential ridiculousness of the measure as a whole. Its foremost provision
would have extended production controls to milk products and feed
grains — at a time when what farmers really wanted was the ability to
run their own business.

In the Senate, on the other hand, it appeared that progress might
at last really be in the making. At a meeting with the President, Vice
President, and legislative leaders, I proposed and it was unanimously
agreed that we should unite in our efforts to promote, mold, and back a
reasonably good bill in the Senate, letting it be known that this was the
only way a farm bill would pass in 1958. The legislative leaders thought
this might get results.

Meantime, the House leadership, driving hard, brought their Omni-
bus Bill to the floor for a vote. We had hoped to avoid this until after
passage of the Senate proposals, because of the psychological advantage
in getting your preferred bill through first, particularly if it can be
passed by a substantial majority.

Though the House leaders beat us to the punch, this time their
strategy backfired. On June 26, 1958, contrary to predictions, the Om-
nibus Bill went to oblivion by a vote of 214 to 171. Our Republicans
stood almost solid and many Democrats, particularly from the cities,
joined them in a solid victory for us, a sound drubbing for the opposi-
tion.

A surprisingly large number of Republicans told me in the next few
days, "This was the greatest Republican victory since this Administration

402 CROSS FIRE

has been in office." As exaggerated as I knew this to be, I rejoiced in
the fact that it seemed to give a lift to the entire Administration.

The Democratic leadership felt it too. Sulkily, Harold Cooley let it be
known that there would be "no farm legislation" enacted in 1958. The
proposed Senate bill, he implied, was totally unacceptable to the House,
little more than a week later, however, after listening to the home
folk and cooler heads in the Congress, Congressman Cooley reversed
himself. There probably would be farm legislation in the House and
along the lines of the pending Senate bill.

On July 25, the Senate passed a fairly satisfactory bill by a vote of
64 to 11.

We were ready to accept. Not so the die-hards on the House Ag
Committee. They had one arrow still in their quiver and they must
shoot it. If they could: (a) report out a bill in Committee, (b) bring it
to the floor of the House, (c) get a suspension of the rules for debate on
the ground that the session of Congress was almost over, (d) pass it by
a two-thirds majority, they would have substantial bargaining power
when they went to conference with the Senate.

Using all the skill and persuasiveness they possessed, Cooley and Poage,
supported by the formidable power of Sam Rayburn, managed to get
the Ag Committee to report out a bill 28 to o with several members
not voting.

On August 5, although I was supposed to be taking a week's vacation,
I felt it wise to attend the meeting of the legislative leaders at the White
House. For the first time that year, we got into a rather heated discus-
sion of the farm issue. I insisted that we had to defeat the House bill
and support the Senate bill. Republican House leaders were divided.
Joe Martin took my side, but Charlie Halleck, Les Arends, and Leo
Allen of Illinois felt that we should either accept the House bill or at
least let it go to conference hoping that we could get what we wanted
there.

"I don't believe for a minute that we can win our objective in this
way " I said. "We have to beat it in the House or we may wind up with
a worse alternative."

"You mean a veto?" one of those pressing for compromise asked. He
went on to say that it had been rumored that if the House bill passed,
I would recommend another veto.

There was no use quibbling about it so I said, bluntly "If the House
bill is passed and comes out of conference in its present form, in the
best interests of farmers and this Administration I shall certainly
have to recommend a veto."

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 403

A written version of my view was presented to Speaker Rayburn.
Thereupon, Rayburn asked leading members of the House Ag Com-
mittee to review the situation to see if they would agree to modify the
bill. That night at 1 1 o'clock, I learned by telephone the concessions the
House was prepared to make.

They were unacceptable.

The next day, the farm bill came up under the parliamentary gim-
mick called "suspension of the rules." This means that the bill is accepted
or rejected "as is," but for passage a two-thirds majority is needed.
The final tally was 210 for, and 186 against— far short of the two-
thirds.

Now the way was open for the measure to be debated on the floor
with an opportunity for our supporters to make the changes they con-
sidered necessary.

The next few days brought a war of nerves. The Southern members
of Congress almost had to have legislation on cotton and rice. Other-
wise, under the existing old program we would have to cut back the
acreage allotment for cotton an additional 22 per cent and for rice
approximately 45 per cent. Since the Southern Congressmen could
hardly afford to adjourn without a new program for cotton and rice,
we were, I felt, in the driver's seat. Obviously they didn't have the votes
to pass any program that was wholly unacceptable to us over the
President's veto.

The chances were good that they'd have to come around to a pro-
gram we could support. That's what happened; within the next few
days, the House passed a bill that we preferred even to the Senate
measure.

Now we had to race against time. The Congress was aching to ad-
journ; eager to get home to campaign in the 1958 elections. Here was
the situation: The Senate had passed a fairly good bill; the House had
belatedly passed one even a little better. Neither could become law,
however, unless and until both chambers accepted the same bill. It
looked as though it couldn't be done in conference; too little time re-
mained. If farm legislation was to be enacted in 1958, we would have to
get the Senate to accept the House changes, thus making a conference

unnecessary.

Immediately I called two staff strategy sessions. We got on the tele-
phone to key Senators. We stressed the need for quick action. On
August 15, the farm bill looked to be dead. On August 16, three mem-
bers of the Senate Agricultural Committee reversing themselves, the
Committee voted to accept the House amendments to the Senate bill.

404 CROSS FIRE

Still working against time, later that same day, a Saturday, the full
Senate voted to request their bill back from the House. The House, how-
ever, had recessed for the weekend. We'd have to wait until Monday, to
see whether that chamber would give up the Senate bill, allowing the
Senate to accept the amendments in the House measure and send the
legislation directly to the White House.

On Monday we waited all day for the Senators to act. Not until that
night did I hear. Then one of our staff called from the Senate Re-
publican Cloak Room to say that the Senate by voice vote had ac-
cepted the House amendments and the measure could now go to the
President.

Here was how the score board looked, comparing the major items
we asked for and what Congress gave us in the Agricultural Act of 1958.

Requested Action Taken

soil BANK
Conservation Reserve — strength- $375 million authorized,
en by increase of funds to $450

million. Acreage Reserve — termi- Authorized by eliminating appro-
nate with 1958 crop. priation.

PRICE SUPPORT

A. Corn

1. Eliminate acreage allot- Done by Agricultural Act of 1958

ments

2. Support at 60 to 90 per Agricultural Act of 1958 author-

cent of parity. ized support at 90 per cent of

3-year average price but not
less than 65 per cent of parity.

B. Other basic commodities

1, Authorize Secretary to No action taken.

increase acreage allot-
ments above formula
provided by law.

2, Eliminate escalator clause. Agricultural Act of 1958 effective

these crops — rice 1959, cotton
1961.

3, Widen range in support to Agricultural Act of 1958 widens

60-90 per cent of parity. cotton and rice to 70-90 per

cent for 1961 crops and to

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 405

65-90 per cent beginning
1962 crops. No action on
wheat, peanuts or tobacco.

C. Dairy products

1. Widen range in price sup- No action taken,
port to 60-90 per cent.

D. Wool

1. Extend National Wool Act Done by Agricultural Act of 1958.

The gaping hole through which the surpluses were pouring in had
been shut a little more. It was still not closed. With the Congress to
be elected in 1958 would rest our final hope of completing the operation.

Now again was heard the newsmen's chorus. Columnist Roscoe Drum-
mond wrote:

Mr. Benson has emerged as the most influential member of the Ei-
senhower Cabinet, as the most secure figure in the Eisenhower adminis-
tration. And now, improbable as it may have seemed when numerous
Republican politicians were trying to hound him out of office, as one of
the most politically popular spokesmen in government.

Charles Bailey, Washington representative for a number of Mid-
western papers, wrote a feature article for the Des Moines Regbter.
It began:

WASHINGTON, D.C.— "I wish you would do everything you can to get
Ezra Benson into my district this fall," the Midwestern Republican con-
gressman said.

He explained to Meade Alcorn, chairman of the Republican national
committee, that he wanted him to arrange it "because after all I've said
about Benson I can't very well ask him myself."

Alcorn nodded and said he'd see what could be done. Back in the privacy
of his office, he permitted himself a chuckle.

Six months earlier, the same congressman, in another talk with Alcorn,
had presented a far different plea: "Whatever you do, don't let that so-
and-so Benson into my district this year."

This switch, according to Republican officials, is no isolated case. . . .

The change in Benson's fortunes within his party is only a part of a
remarkable political comeback for the farm chief. The story could almost
be titled "Ezra Benson — from heel to hero."

It could be filled with rags-to-riches items like this:

On Feb. 20, an angry group of house Republicans dispatched emis-
saries to Benson's office. Their message: Get out for the good of the

party.

On Aug. 14, without even a roll-call vote, the house passed a farm

bill that carried big chunks of Benson's program almost intact.

406 CROSS FIRE

Or notes like this:

Jan. 17, 1958: The senate agriculture committee gives Benson the
toughest going-over he's ever received on Capital Hill.

June 24, 1958: The same committee, by a 12-3 vote, gives Benson
a new farm program with even more than he asked for.

No member of the Cabinet, said Bailey, had given the "shirt-sleeves
backroom operators of the GOP more nightmares ... No Cabinet
resignation has been sought with so much fervor by so many party pros."

But there he sits, 5J4 years later, not only still in office but possessed of
the legislative scalps of some of the toughest warriors in congress.

What interested me most in Bailey's article was a quote he attributed
to Hubert Humphrey.

"He's the toughest, two-fisted political operator in Washington . . .
Anybody who doubted it learned better when Ike vetoed that farm bill
in 1956 from the golf course while Ezra stood by like a proud papa."

Hubert, I fear, was no more accurate in that evaluation than in
many of his other utterances, but I must confess I liked the flavor of this
one.

Meade Alcorn got the fever too, as in Salt Lake City when he re-
ferred to me in these warm terms:

"I would like to pay tribute here in his home state to a great Ameri-
can — a man who has become a national symbol of unflinching courage
and unwavering conviction. We don't often see his like in Washington or
anywhere else.

"I speak, of course, of Ezra Taft Benson, the greatest Secretary of
Agriculture the nation ever had . . ." etc.

At a news conference that summer the distasteful topic came up
again.

"Mr. Secretary, one more political question," a reporter said. "There's
been an increasing amount of rumoring and talk around town that you
are interested, or could be interested in the Vice Presidential nomina-
tion, would you accept it?"

No, I said, I was not even thinking about such things, was busy with
the job at hand.

"You are not prepared to say yes or no to the question?"

No, I was not concerned about any political office.

Do you know what I thought about all this? I thought, "Ezra, be
careful — be very very careful. The higher you go on the applause ma-
chine the farther you can fall. Today you're a hero — tomorrow you
may be a heel."

33

Licked and Licked Bad

On Columbus Day, I sat in the office of President David O. McKay in
Salt Lake City. With his hazel eyes, ruddy cheeks, and snow-white hair,
he seemed the embodiment of buoyant youth, combined with venerable
wisdom.

"I have been hearing your name mentioned recently, Brother Ben-
son," he said, "as a possible candidate for the Vice Presidency and
even for the Presidency."

The speculation had continued. Tom Anderson, the outspoken editor
and publisher of Farm and Ranch magazine, had written in a September
editorial of an encounter with Jamie Whitten.

The Mississippi Congressman had told Anderson that when he thought
of me, he was reminded of a practice Mississippi farmers had followed
in the depression of "passing the preacher" around.

"Frequently during revivals," Whitten said, "different families in the
community would keep the visiting preacher for a day and night, after
which some other family would take on this expense."

Anderson quoted Whitten as saying, 'The President should pass Mr,
Benson around. Unless the Labor or Commerce or some other Depart-
ment gets Elder Benson for a time, he is going to eat the farmer out of
house and home."

And Anderson, according to his account, shot back, "I agree with
you, Congressman Whitten — Fd like to see Benson passed around. I'd
like to see him President."

Flattering as this support might be, I earnestly wished friends would
stop bringing it up.

Mark Evans, a Washington TV personality, cornered me one Sun-
day morning after a Church meeting, "Do you know," he asked, "that

408 GROSS FIRE

there is a ground swell under way to nominate you for the Vice
Presidency?"

"I'd hardly call it a ground swell," I said drily.

"Well, we won't quibble about the word," Mark went on, "but I can
assure you that there is a good deal of discussion about it among Wash-
ington reporters and newsmen, and I just want to say that I hope you
won't say no, if things develop favorably."

"Mark, I think you know that I have no political ambitions. Anyway,
I believe the whole thing is merely an academic question. Just let hog
prices or cattle prices drop and I'll be right back to low man on the
totem pole."

Mr. I. Lee Potter, special assistant to the Chairman of the Republican
National Committee, in charge of field work in the Southern states, had
also been to see me. He said he had been traveling through the South
talking to people about possible candidates for i960. "I think you should
know that in the South you are the most popular of all the Republicans.
Again and again your name is mentioned as a potential candidate for
the Presidency or the Vice Presidency."

He told of an interview he had had with the head of a national
chain of daily newspapers. "We were discussing i960," Potter re-
called, "and when your name came up he looked me in the eye and
said, 'Benson is one man our papers could go all out for — and I mean
for the highest office in the land.' "

Potter said, "Ezra, don't throw cold water on the idea."

The situation had grown most embarrassing: frankly, I didn't know
how to handle it. I shrank inwardly whenever the subject arose. It was
inconceivable that anything serious would come of this. I didn't want
either to seem coy or to appear to be taking the thing seriously. What I
wanted to do was to go back where I belonged — back to Utah — back
to my real work.

This is what I told President McKay as we sat in his office on that
Sunday morning, October 12, 1958. "I've said over and over again
that I have no political aspirations. All I want to do is serve President
Eisenhower as best I can as long as he thinks he needs me. Then I want
to come home."

President McKay smiled gently, "No answer could be better than
that, Brother Benson. Just keep on as you are and we'll wait for the
Lord to tell us what the future holds."

We were in the middle of the election campaign. Election fever as
always had caught hold in September. People who wanted "in" and

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 409

people who wanted to stay in now hit the campaign trail in earnest.

Because I wanted "out," I had tackled the President again. "Don't
you think now would be a good time for you to release me?" As before,
he smiled, "I expect you to continue here as long as I am in the White
House."

Then he plucked Don Paarlberg from me to take the place of Gabe
Hauge who was retiring as the President's economic adviser. Though
I hated to see Don go it was an opportunity for him* Since I couldn't
win a thing in Washington that September, I decided to see if I could
do any better on the campaign circuit.

From about the first of September until November, I traveled 30,000
miles and made 46 formal speeches. The informal ones, at meetings
and while visiting farm operators and their neighbors on their own
farms, were too many to count.

In this, the first election after the Russian Sputniks had shocked the
electorate, a year of business recession, and an off-year contest in which
the party in the White House usually loses seats in Congress, the fortunes
of our party had sunk low.

Yet, to me, 1958 seemed even more than in 1954 and 1956, a time
of decision. Americans would soon make a momentous choice. That was
my theme as I farm-stormed the nation.

The incoming Congress would be the last during the Eisenhower
Administration, Whatever we hoped to complete in the way of program
and policies, this was the final chance. Though I talked a lot about
agriculture in the campaign, the talks went far beyond farm problems.

What, as Americans, did we expect of our government in Washing-
ton?

We wanted peace with honor, and thank God, we had it

We wanted prosperity — and we had had unprecedented prosperity in
the years of peace which followed Korea.

We wanted programs which promote freedom and the free enter-
prise system — and the private enterprise system was functioning more
effectively, bringing broader benefits to all of us, than during the past
several years.

We wanted integrity in government.

We wanted fiscal responsibility. We could not afford to let inflation
impose further crushing burdens of cheaper dollars.

We wanted a firm and courageous policy in dealing with the threat
of atheistic Communism.

We wanted sound tax policy.

4io CROSS FIRE

These were the things American citizens wanted and had a right to
expect from their government. But what were the things we did not
want?

We did not want a return to the New Deal-Fair Deal with its mas-
sive surge toward government power concentrated in Washington. We
did not want Walter Reuther controlling the next Congress and naming
the next President. We did not want a calculated attack on States 5
rights and more and more Federal controls.

We did not want planned deficit spending and crushing taxes. We
did not want labor strife, and long work stoppages. We did not want
widespread corruption and a return to government by cronyism.

We did not want a relentless and bitter attack upon private enter-
prise and a one-way trip down the left lane which leads inescapably
to Socialism.

Here, then, were the two choices — either a return to price fixers and
the forces of regimentation, or a program under Republican leader-
ship aimed at an expanding, prosperous, and free economy under the
free enterprise system.

Either a centralization of control in the Federal Government with an
increasing dose of bureaucratic paternalism, or a Republican adminis-
tration fostering greater responsibility in state and local governments
and less domination from desks in Washington.

Either a resumption of the drive for punitive legislation aimed at un-
dermining private enterprise, or a Republican Congress dedicated to the
protection, promotion and strengthening of the free enterprise system.

Either a program of spending, taxing, deficits, and runaway inflation,
or a Republican government dedicated to fiscal integrity, a stabilized
dollar, balanced budgets and a greater proportion of the tax revenue
expended at the state and local level.

The time for decision was again at hand for all of us, regardless of
political affiliation. Independent voters and right-thinking Democrats
could and should help in this fight for the preservation of our free way
of life. We were all in this battle together.

We had to reject the proposition that an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-
powerful government was the panacea for our problems. Nothing was
ever so wrong.

We had to have a reaffirmation of principle — a 1958 Declaration of
Independence — independence from big government, independence
from big spending, and independence from paternalism that destroys
individual initiative and opportunity.

We had to guarantee the right of citizens to make their own decisions

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 4II

with a minimum of government interference. With God's help, we could
make the right choice.
This is what I said.

In California the "right to work" issue was on the ballot. On Octo-
ber 31, in answer to numerous requests, I stated my position on this
issue:

Whether or not a man belongs to a labor organization is certainly
one of his individual rights. An individual's right of liberty or right to
pursuit of happiness cannot be fully realized unless he is completely free
in the right to work. Should this right to work be guaranteed only to
union members or should it be guaranteed to all who seek employment?
The answer was obvious.

I said I approved of the method by which this question of voluntary
or involuntary unionism was being decided. That each state, through
its citizens, should determine its own course in this or any similar de-
cision was in line with my philosophy of government. And I added:

"I am fully sympathetic with the problems of the laboring man. His
rights should be protected.

"When Congress has had under consideration important labor legis-
lation, the right of a worker to walk off the job at will has been carefully
protected. The right to walk on the job without the limitation of requir-
ing that a worker join a union or any other organization should be
equally protected.

"It is my firm conviction that a person should get and keep a job on
the basis of his ability and performance. This is fair. It is the American
way."

The campaign, arduous as it was, had its quota of lighter moments.
When we went into eastern Nebraska at the start of a two-week farm-
storming trip, a local committee presented me with a frozen turkey. Bob
McMillen, along as my staff assistant, explained that we would be
traveling by car and couldn't haul this bird around with us. Nor would
we be back in that vicinity. What were we to do with this turkey?

The man who made the presentation shrugged and said, a model of
diplomacy, "I've done my job. That's your worry."

We campaigned rather intensively among the Wisconsin dairy farm-
ers. In Beloit, Wisconsin, a farmer invited me to visit his place the next
morning. I told him I'd be out to help with the milking. Next morning
at 5 : 30 the headlights from my car and others in the caravan threaded
through the darkness to the farm. As we arrived, there was no apparent

412 CROSS FIRE

activity around the barn. I walked over to the farmhouse door and
knocked. No response. I knocked harder. Finally, a light came on. A
sleepy-eyed dairy farmer, half-dressed, opened the door. Greatly em-
barrassed he protested that this was positively the first time in his life
he had ever overslept.

Wisconsin dairy producers had given me a good deal of abuse at the
time I had adjusted dairy supports downward to help the industry get
back on its feet. But now as I told my story in large auditoriums to
packed houses or on street corners during brief stops en route to the next
scheduled meeting, a lot of these dairy farmers grabbed my hand, and
shook it and squeezed it as only a dairy farmer with gnarled and callused
hands can — to emphasize their support.

On one farm we went into the barn where, between two rows of
Holstein cows, about a hundred farmers assembled. They brought me a
bale of straw to sit on and I talked with them as frankly as I knew how
about what we were trying to do for agriculture and what this election
meant to the United States,

Another time we went up into Wyoming to talk with cattle ranchers,
Sam Hyatt, who had spoken up so strongly in my defense at Senator
Pat McCarran's luncheon way back in 1953, introduced me. There were
about 1500 in the audience and at the close of the address every one
of them came up to shake hands.

I went into Arizona at Barry Goldwater's invitation, the only speaker
from outside the state invited in, to help him in his stiff fight against
former Senator and present Governor Ernest W. McFarland. Barry was
really fighting for his political life. He had been singled out by the
labor leaders and AFL-GIO Committee on Political Education as one
man who had to be defeated.

I spoke at a business-farmer breakfast in Phoenix, held a news con-
ference, drove to Mesa, Arizona, for a barbecue luncheon and meeting,
got in Goldwater's private plane, which he himself piloted, and flew
to Safford, Arizona, for a dinner with political leaders and then ad-
dressed a Republican rally that night — ail in one day.

It was typical of the campaign.

In the very heart of the campaign, however, there came an evening
so different, so restful, so serene, it was almost as if we had stepped out
of this busy, noisy, demanding world into an anteroom of heaven.

It occurred October 26, a Sunday, at the White House, The interna-
tionally famed Mormon Tabernacle Choir from Salt Lake City presented
a concert for the Eisenhowers, a black-tie affair, with the choir all in

On international trade trips, Secretary Benson

visits with the premiers
and the people.

mm

[18] A Yugoslavian family

welcomes the Bensons,

serves them sandwiches.

[19] In Jerusalem,

Israeli Premier David Ben Gurion,

recovering from injuries received in

a bomb-throwing incident in the

Israeli Parliament, and the author

talk over the growing pains of

both nations, as well as Old

Testament prophecies.

WIDE WORLD PHOTO

nDi

I

B

^^1T.;^

[20 8c 21]

On a visit to a church in Russia,
the Secretary is asked to speak. During
what the author considers one of the
most moving experiences of his career,
the faces of the congregation and their
tearful farewell suggest a continuing
spiritual fervor, even in a land where
the lights of the churches have been
frequently extinguished.

PHOTOS COURTESY OF
U. S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT

[22] Stirred by the bravery of the Hungarian uprising (here, rebels wave their tricolor on a
captured tank in Budapest, 1956) and upset by the brutal Russian retaliation, it was the
Secretary of Agriculture who said that the Administration should issue the strongest possible
statement. He was asked to draft it himself, and the government released his statement
virtually unchanged. wide world photo

A gallery of cartoon comment
tells almost the entire story of eight

ANHUAL HARVEST FESTIVAL.

smmsfM

[23] THE DETROIT NEWS

years of surplus crops and a surplus
of political crossfire.

NWMAT's mv£Rt>icr?

J © 1959, NEW YORK HERALD TRIBUNE, INC.

[25] THE OMAHA WORLD HERALD

[26] REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION
OF NEWSPAPER ENTERPRISE ASSN.

"NOW WriftT+iAPPeWeP TO iPlAT NUMERAL TWOCeSSlOM 2 *

" i ewt believe
You're much of
a RxiTO/H ,

WlfHIHAt?A|ORE

Ll^E You/

O^'

'27] REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF NEWSPAPER ENTERPRISE ASSN #

Faces from the eight
years with Eisenhower

[28-32] Senator Robert A. Taft, who either
sponsored or agreed to the Benson nomina-
tion (the Secretary never knew which) . . . Gov-
ernor Nelson Rockefeller and Senator Barry
M. Goldwater, proposed by the author as the
Republican ticket for 1960, a suggestion not
taken seriously until after the election was lost
. . . Richard M. Nixon, who as Vice President
supported the Administration's farm policies
for most of the eight years, then began calling
for a new look . . . Milton S. Eisenhower, who
as advisor to the President, first spoke with
Ezra Taft Benson about the possibility of join-
ing the Cabinet. photos by wide world

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 413

formal dress. From beginning to end of this one-hour performance in
the Gold Room, the President and Mrs. Eisenhower were obviously
enthralled by the music.

All of our family except those living away from Washington were
there — even fourteen-year-old Beth. (Under White House rules, chil-
dren did not attend such functions, but the President had given special
permission for Beth to come.)

Sitting on the President's right, I was able to share in his delight.
Never had I seen him so completely lifted up by music as on this oc-
casion. Again and again, he turned to me to mention his immense
pleasure, but especially after two of his favorite numbers, "Battle
Hymn of the Republic" and "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God." When
the regular concert was concluded, he asked the choir to sing on, and
after they had done this for an additional fifteen minutes, he rose and
spoke to them and all of us in the warmest tones. The beauty of the
performance and the President's reaction brought tears to many eyes.

Earlier the President and First Lady had received and greeted the
entire choir one by one as they went through the line. Now after the
concert he led the singers and all of his guests into the State Dining
Room where a lovely table of refreshments had been set up. The
President himself filled the first cup from a little fruit juice fountain
and handed it to Flora. Then he and Mrs. Eisenhower mingled with
the guests for about an hour, and even after Mrs. Eisenhower had left,
the President lingered on for another fifteen minutes or so. As I walked
with him to the elevator which would take him to his quarters, he
summed up all his previous comments by taking my hand and saying to
me, "Ezra, I never enjoyed music before as I have tonight. This is far
the best. Thanks so very, very much for arranging for them to sing
for us."

It was little enough to do for a friend.

The elections of November 4, 1958, were a disaster. A Congress that
had been safely Democratic before was succeeded by one overwhelm-
ingly so. Picking up 14 seats in the Senate and 51 in the House, the
Democrats won close to a two-thirds majority in both chambers. More-
over, a substantial number of the newly elected legislators were ultra-
liberals, and a few of them, in my opinion, were radicals.

Most of the Republican representatives for whom I campaigned in
1958 were re-elected. I spoke in the districts of more than twenty who
came out as Republican winners, while only four incumbents for whom
I campaigned were defeated. In many of the marginal districts I had

414 CROSS FIRE

not only been invited to come in by the Congressmen but had been urged
to do so by the Republican National Committee.

One of my close associates, Ancher Nelson, whom I had chosen to
replace Claude Wickard as Administrator of the REA, and who had
vigorously defended the Administration's rural electrification policies,
was elected to Congress in Minnesota; on the other hand, one of my
most persistent Democratic critics, Representative Coya Knutson, was
defeated by Republican Odin Langen in her bid for re-election in the
same state.

Congressman Bill Avery of Kansas won re-election. Avery had in-
troduced me to live and television audiences when I spoke in Topeka.
He was re-elected with the largest majority of any Kansas Republican.

Some of my Republican critics lost their bids for re-election. Senator
Edward J. Thye of Minnesota was beaten by Eugene J. McCarthy,
and A. L. Miller of Nebraska also lost his seat. Governor Joe Foss of
South Dakota was retired from elective office.

The moral seemed to be that where little difference separated the
position of the Republican candidate from that of the Democrat, the
electorate preferred the Democrats.

As Republicans we had to face up to some hard facts* No matter
how we explained it, our party had taken a terrific shellacking. I know
it's a political axiom never to admit defeat, but always to put a good
face on it, always to explain it away by "circumstances." No circum-
stances could hide the truth, however, that we had been licked, and
licked bad.

It helped, though, to get such interesting thank yous as this one from
Representative Cliff Young, Nevada Representative-at-large. In part, he
wrote:

The State was favored by the national Speakers* Bureau with a large
number of outstanding men, but no one made a more favorable impression
on the people of the State of Nevada or my supporters than you.

Although we were not successful, I am sure that any measure of achieve-
ment that was enjoyed by me was enhanced considerably by your visit.
I was amused by one story out of Lovelock (my home town) from a die-
hard Democrat who heard you speak, He commented later that he didn't
want to listen to you again or two things might happen — first, he might
become a Mormon and second and worse, he might become a Republican.

After the elections, Dick Nixon offered a summary of the reasons for
the defeat, as he saw them — an easy but not fully accurate one.

"There has been no question of leadership in this Administration,"
Nixon said, "It's only been a question of showmanship. And despite the

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 415

opposition charges that we are supposed to have been taken in by Madi-
son Avenue, we have been awfully inept sometimes in presenting
our case to the people. Take the farm issue, for example. What we have
proposed and what we have done has been right for the farmers and
the nation. The farmer has never had it so good. But, someway, some-
how, our Democratic friends have done such a job on Ezra Benson
that they have the farmers thinking he and the Republican party are
against them. We took the first shellackings in the farm states. That is
where we lost the three Senate seats that I didn't think we would lose.
That also denied us a couple of governorships and lost us two. We had
good candidates there. Incidentally, one thing I'd like to make clear is
that all the speculation that I've been out trying to get Benson fired is
wrong. I have never advocated any changes in the Cabinet and it
would be inappropriate for me to do so. The Cabinet membership is
the President's prerogative alone. I praised Benson for working hard
in the '58 campaign and I praised him for his courage for standing for
what is right although it is obvious that the Democrats have made him
a symbol of "agin the farmer" just as they made Herbert Hoover a
symbol of the depression."

In this statement of the Vice President was hidden a key to our future
relationship.

Our hope of pushing the Eisenhower farm program to completion
suffered a heavy blow on November 4. The Congressional changes we
had hoped for had not developed; quite the contrary. Tantalizingly
near to our goal, we were, from the standpoint of practical politics,
still far from ultimate success. Most farmers, we felt, sided with us. The
corn referendum of November 25 surely pointed that way.

Three weeks to the day after the general political elections, the corn
producers of the nation held an election of their own — this one pro-
viding a fairly accurate gauge of what kind of program they wanted.
They had to make a choice. They could continue with acreage allot-
ments and price supports ranging from 75 to 90 per cent of parity. Or
they could strike off the acreage allotments and accept price support at
90 per cent of the average price of the three preceding years, but not
less than 65 per cent of parity. By a majority of nearly three to one,
they chose to get rid of allotments and take the lower supports.

We had contended for years that they would do precisely this the first
time a choice was offered between controls with high support and no
controls with lower support.

416 GROSS FIRE

Now if we could prevail on the Congress to offer wheat, peanut, and
tobacco producers a similar choice, our program would be substantially
in effect.

The make-up of the new Congress, however, would be overwhelm-
ingly against this.

Only one thing remained for us to do. Speaking before the Golden
Anniversary Convention of the Vegetable Growers Association of
America in Cleveland, December 9, 1958, I made what some ob-
servers called the hardest hitting of all my addresses. In this speech, I
traced the progress we had made thus far in liquidating the dairy sur-
plus, the seedstock surplus, other commodity surpluses and reducing
the cotton surplus. I showed that per capita income of farm people from
all sources was one of the highest on record. Yet, unless we moved
promptly to complete our farm program, disaster could result.

"It may be later than we think," I warned. "We cannot continue
under the present wheat program. Something must give." I pointed
out that if we did not grow one bushel of wheat for two full years, we
could meet all our needs at home — plus all our probable exports — and
still have a carryover of 325,000,000 bushels.

"Already we have $3,000,000,000 tied up in the wheat surplus —
and the big upsurge from this year's record crop has not yet come in."

As for tobacco, I said we had been losing markets steadily. "We are
losing markets right now — because we still have the same old rigid 90
per cent supports on tobacco that we have had since the early 1940s.

"Even with the best quality tobacco in the world, we are pricing our-
selves out of export markets . . . The world's largest tobacco market
used to be in North Carolina. Now it's in Rhodesia."

Then I traced the history of the confusion, the tragic mixup, in the
agricultural programs. This had developed for one reason:

"Because for nearly ten years after World War II, the country failed
to face up to farm realities. The climate all around agriculture was
rapidly changing — but agriculture was forced to go on wearing the same
old suit of clothes — the same old rigid 90 per cent of parity programs.
Rigid price support was the sacred cow of that era. Don't touch!
Don't tamper! Hands off!

"Things have reached their present state because too many peo-
ple lacked courage to face facts — because political expediency was sub-
stituted for sound economics — because wishful thinking was easier than
facing reality . . .

<c Mariana. Manana. Always it was: We'll do this tomorrow.

"Meanwhile, the precious months and years during which farmers

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 417

could have made their needed adjustments slipped down the corridor
of history."

And I concluded with a plea for a cessation of political approaches
to the question because it was this that was preventing action.

"Let us seek the solutions we so sorely need. Let us go forward to-
gether — all of us who believe in the future of a prosperous, expanding,
and free agriculture. There is no room for blind partisanship, for
prejudice, for bitter bias. Agriculture is neither Republican nor Dem-
ocrat. It is American.

"As Americans all, let us get on with the job,"

One good thing about year-ends; they afford a precious week or two
of spiritual tuning up. Even commercialized as it is, Christmas calls
forth friendship, good will, smiles and cheery greetings. And where it
rises above commercialism, as it does in millions of families and friend-
ships, it expresses the basic idea of God's love for man and the Christ-
like spirit of service and love to which we should aspire.

On Sunday, December 21, after the evening church service, more
than a hundred young people came to our home for Fireside. They sat
on the floor, on the steps, anywhere they could find a place. They
offered me the privilege of talking with them about Christmas. Then
Flora and the girls served homemade punch, cookies, and candy. It
was well after midnight when we retired.

As I fell off to sleep, it was with a heart filled with gratitude for the
comforts and blessings we enjoyed, especially for our good family and
true friends, and for the rich, yes, priceless truths of the Gospel.

Two days before Christmas, Jamie Whitten was my guest at luncheon
in the private dining room. We talked frankly about many matters of
policy, and though we still had marked differences as in the past, our
conversation was cordial.

The day before Christmas, Flora, Beverly, Bonnie, and Beth per-
suaded me to go ice skating with them at the Marriott Motor Hotel
just across the river in Virginia. For the first time in many years, I put
on a pair of skates. It took very litde practice to get the hang of it
again. Soon we were all flying around the rink. After about an hour of
fine fun, I suddenly stubbed the toe of my skate, taking a bad fall. My
shoulder seemed to be dislocated. The pain was excruciating. One of the
Marriott boys drove me to Walter Reed where the doctors rendered me
unconscious with anesthetics so they could put the shoulder back in
place and bind me up tightly. Later in the day they released me with

4^8 CROSS FIRE

instructions to come back in two days. The gagster was right who called
ice skating a sedentary sport.

Though that was one Christmas Eve I didn't get to play Santa
Claus, it was a wonderful day nonetheless. Our home was decorated
more beautifully, I believe, than ever before, in keeping with the joy of
spirit that prevailed within. We talked by telephone with Mark, Reed,
and their wives.

Early on the day after Christmas I presented myself at Walter Reed,
where the doctors put me in a cast which circled my abdomen, and
covered my back and shoulder and my arm down to the elbow.

All that week I "enjoyed 53 being a patient at home, and though the
pain sometimes mounted, it was pleasant indeed to be with Flora and
the children and to receive the good wishes of friends.

Then, it was New Year's Eve again. We attended a lovely talent
program in the Ward followed by a dinner and some music in the
Chapel. I went home for a while during the evening, but returned in
time to hear Beverly play the organ for about an hour and a half and
toll in the New Year at midnight.

This year, ending what some called the Fabulous
Fifties, saw Fidel Castro break faith with the peo-
ple of Cuba by making his country a Communist
base of operations in the Western Hemisphere.
Khrushchev visited the United States, and Eisen-
hower made a 22,000 mile good-will tour of three
continents. The U.S. launched the world's first
ballistic-missile submarine and the first atomic-
powered merchant ship, and recovered Able and
Baker, two monkeys, from the nose cone of a
Jupiter rocket. Russian Luniks reportedly hit the
moon and radioed back to earth photographs of
the moon's other side.

The St. Lawrence Seaway was opened, and the
U.S. steel industry was shut down by a 116-day
nationwide strike. Alaska and Hawaii became the
4gth and 50th states. John Foster Dulles and Gen.
George C. Marshall died.

In agriculture "Food for Peace" was inaugu-
rated, but the wheat problem grew worse. And one
of the most moving experiences of my life occurred
on October 1 — in a sermon preached to 1500 Rus-
sians in the heart of Moscow, U.S.S.R.

1959

34

Big Budget, Big Debt, Big Government

"Republics," wrote Montesquieu, "end through luxury."

The modern version of the same idea is, it has been said: "There,
little luxury, don't you cry: you'll be a necessity by and by,"

The President was now in his next to last year of office. Since he
could not be re-elected, he was becoming, to use the ungallant if graphic
expression, a lame duck. A growing restlessness in Republican ranks
revealed the rising quest for power. The Vice President, with the party
professionals backing him, had a huge lead for the Republican nomina-
tion for President in i960, but Nelson Rockefeller, who had beaten
Averell Haxriman for the governorship of New York in 1958, could
not be counted out in view of his proven popularity and spectacular
appeal as a vote-getter in the nation's largest state.

With i960 fast approaching and the Eisenhower magic probably
not transferable to any other candidate, many Republicans contended
that the party had to make a "liberal" record in 1959 and i960 or
face political annihilation. Everything indicated that it was going to
become increasingly hard to keep principle out of the jaws of expedi-
ency.

The party regulars talked a lot about "images." The Republican
image, said to be that of a party devoted to the preservation of business
and property rights, had to be redone — in U.S. currency. The political
axiom: "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em," was to be rewritten — "Don't
join 'em, outspend 'em."

Republicans, it seemed, were supposed to prove to the American
people that they could be even faster with the taxpayers' bucks than
the New- and Fair-Dealers.

We could prove our "liberalism" by getting legislation passed for

422 CROSS FIRE

Federal aid to education — by not worrying so much about balancing
the budget — by being willing to send the national debt a little higher
— and of course by doing whatever spending was necessary to make
sure that farm income, up in 1958, stayed there in 1959 and i960.

Nobody would have put it in just those words; but that's the way
it added up to some of my fellow Republicans. This element in the party,
and it was sizable, interpreted the 1958 elections as an endorsement by
the electorate of more government action in the life and problems of
the people. This conclusion, I thought, didn't necessarily follow. It is
difficult enough to get a clear pattern of the people's desires in presi-
dential elections, and much more so in congressional.

But even if the conclusion were true, surely this did not mean that
the Republican party had to pick up the banner of "let the government
do it" and fall in step beside the northern Democrats, On the contrary,
we had to stand even firmer for the philosophy of individual responsi-
bility in which we professed to believe.

Rather than being a time to surrender principle and play politics,
this was, above all, the very moment to make politics subservient to
standards. We had to redouble our efforts to educate; we had to pick
stronger and more attractive candidates; we had to improve our or-
ganization; we had to get business to play a more active role in national
and state politics as the Democrats had succeeded in getting labor to
do; but with a view to defending principle, not just winning in i960.

With every bit of strength and influence I possessed, I was resolved
to buck the rising trend toward politics first.

Cabinet on January 16 lasted nearly four hours, most of the time
spent in debating a proposal by Arthur S. Flemming, Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare, for Federal participation in school
construction.

The Cabinet was divided. The President seemed to be against the
proposal. I waited for someone to speak strongly in opposition and then
decided the time had come for a speech in Cabinet that had been on my
chest for a long time.

"There is a tendency in big government," I began, "for govern-
ment officials to try to promote programs which impose progress on the
people rather than waiting for the people to initiate it themselves.

"There are no poor states any more. If educational school facilities
are needed the states will provide them. They are closer to the needs
of the people than we can be sitting in Washington.

"It is difficult to make a case for the Federal Government being more

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 423

able to finance schools than states when the Federal debt exceeds the
debt of all the states. If we enter this field, there will be no place to
stop. Federal participation will become bigger and bigger and it will
contribute to a bigger Federal Government debt and make it more
difficult to live within our income. It will jeopardize the fiscal integrity
of our government.

"People generally do not favor Federal aid to education particularly
if, by so doing, it will force the Federal Government deeper into
debt," I went on. "After all the question of need is a matter of human
judgment.

"This is one area where I think this administration could afford to
fight it out on the basis of principle."

To my intense disappointment, a good many members of the Cabinet
seemed fearful of political repercussion if we didn't offer some kind of
program of Federal aid. The Vice President took this position.

It was finally decided that Secretary Flemming should be prepared
to present the matter to the Republican legislative leaders on the fol-
lowing Tuesday, indicating it appeared necessary to offer to the Congress
some kind of a plan for Federal aid. I hoped the legislative leaders
would turn it down.

About ten days later with a sigh of relief, I learned that they had
blocked the proposal.

It worried me to see how many of our people had come to look on
the Federal Government as the provider, at no cost to them, of whatever
was needful, entrapped by the illusion that the Federal Government is
wealthy and the states poverty-stricken. By 1959, the Federal debt had
become nearly six times as great as the debt of all the states and all
local governments combined. The Federal debt in December 1958, was
$283,000,000,000 — about $7000 per family in the United States. In
about 25 years our expanding Federal Government had boosted the
average family's tax bill from $120 to $1600 a year.

The U, S. Treasury was not a bottomless grab bag which never
needed to be conserved or replenished; but some people seemed to think
it was. The truth is that the Federal Government has no funds which it
does not, in some manner, take from the people. And a dollar cannot
make the round trip from Oklahoma, Iowa, California, or even Mary-
land, to Washington and back without shrinking in the process.

Taxpayers need to recognize that a nation can hang itself on the
gallows of excessive public debt. They didn't, and that's why the battle
of the budget left me disturbed.

For the 1959 fiscal year the Federal deficit was estimated at nearly

A2A CROSS FIRE

$13,000,000,000 — the government, in other words, was spending nearly
$13,000,000,000 more than its receipts.

For fiscal i960, the President had presented a budget of
$77,000,000,000 — a balanced budget, even though the biggest in our
peacetime history. Yet some of our Democratic critics were calling it
"skinflint," Actually, as the President said, it would "help prevent
further increases in the cost of living and the hidden and unfair tax
that inflation imposes on personal savings and incomes."

The need to curb the tendency of some legislators to make the 86th
Congress a "spendthrift Congress" weighed heavily on me — so much
so that in a number of speeches early in 1959, I hammered as hard as
I could on the fiscal issue.

I spoke out to point out that a sound economy is of vital importance
to all of us, but especially to our younger citizens. They would live under
the hysteria of inflation throughout the rest of their lives carrying the
load of our rising debt — if it was not checked now.

The Federal debt was only part of the picture. When we added up
our total net debt — that owed by Federal, State, and local governments,
by business and by individuals — the sum became a staggering
$758,000,000,000.

I tried to describe what inflation had done to the people of France —
where the cost of living had risen 37 times what it had been about
thirty years earlier.

A pound of butter that cost ten francs in 1927 now cost 410.

Men who put aside savings for substantial annuities found that the
buying power of their pensions was only 15 per cent of what it had been
in 1940.

The pensions of French veterans of World War I— pensions once
considered adequate — had depreciated to a value of 70 cents a month.
"Don't say it cannot happen here. The people of France never thought
it would happen there,"

I pointed out that I did not mean to say that all debt was bad. Sound
business debt is one of the elements of growth, Sound mortgage credit
is a real help to a family that must borrow for a farm or a home.

But, I asked, isn't it apparent that in the areas of both public and
personal debt these limitations of soundness are being disregarded by all
too many of our citizens?

I did some talking about the dangers of Federal aid to education, too.

As President Eisenhower said, "The responsibility for public educa-
tion rests with the states and local communities. Federal action which in-
fringes upon this principle is alien to our system . . . But our history has

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 425

demonstrated that the Federal Government, in the interest of the
whole people, can and should help with certain problems of nation-
wide scope and concern when states and communities — acting inde-
pendently — cannot solve the full problem or solve it rapidly enough."

The trouble was that proposals for Federal aid to education, I feared,
had often been made for other purposes. Sometimes these proposals
stemmed from a general philosophy of centralized government. Some-
times they seemed based upon outright political appeal: Why support
your own schools if Uncle Sam will do it for you?

Remembering that the Supreme Court had said, "It is hardly lack
of due process for the government to regulate that which it subsidizes,"
I felt we must be ever on guard lest Federal aid lead to Federal control.

One recent development that gave new ammunition to the propo-
nents of Federal aid was the Russian successes in rocketry and space
exploration. More and more critics were rising up to say our educa-
tional system was failing in the competition — and that this proved the
need for Federal aid.

That faults existed in our educational system no one could deny.
In gearing the curricula to the middle of the class, our system too often
had not provided sufficient challenge for the better student. Champions
seldom become champions by competing only against mediocrity.

Some educators contended that even with courses geared to the aver-
age, our system in too many cases tended to accept inferior work as of
passing grade. Surely there would be grave danger to our society if
youth were allowed to grow up believing that a lick and a promise is
all that is needed to get by. It is not generally true on the adult level
that one reaps reward without effort, receives wages without work, or
enjoys prestige without achievement. By the same token, neither could
a nation nor a system of education maintain freedom and security
without individual sacrifice.

Yet, I believed that our educational system had many unique values
which were being overlooked. Our schools had done much to help create
national unity. They had Americanized newcomers to our shores quickly
and harmoniously.

You have only to look at the varied nationalities and races indicated
by the names on our student councils, on our athletic teams, to appre-
ciate the truly unique equality of opportunity in our schools. This has
been reflected in the attitudes of the American people. It is not only
by chance that the Presidents of our nation have been drawn from all
classes and all occupations. It is not only due to good luck that the
American people have never had a military dictator — and that we do
truly have in this country a government by law.

426 GROSS FIRE

In part these blessings are the fruit of the ideals and the freedom of
our educational system.

What disturbed me was that in the process of financially "improving
education" we might end up uprooting its most solid values. The tradi-
tional view of education has been that it is a preparation for life — but I
saw worrisome signs among some of those educators clamoring for Fed-
eral aid that made me fear that preparing for life in their view might
be less important than knowing how to land on the moon. To me, pre-
paring for life means, above all, building personal integrity, developing
a sound sense of values, increasing the capacity and willingness to
serve. Education must have its roots in these moral principles. If
ever we dismiss that fact in our attempt to match our educational
system against that of the materialists, we shall certainly lose far more
than we can possibly gain*

Making this campaign against Federal aid to education, against bigger
and bigger government and in favor of a wise and restrained fiscal
policy did not keep us from continuing the fight on the farm front. On
the contrary, wherever possible, I tied all these strings together.

I would go before a farm audience and tell them of our grave
concern over the growing national attitude of more and more depend-
ence on the Federal Government.

Powerful forces, in pushing us toward a planned and subsidized
economy, were threatening our freedom. I cited the Yankus case. A
Michigan farmer named Yankus had been hailed into court and fined
for growing wheat to feed to livestock on his own farm. Yankus, having
fought this case to its conclusion and lost, was now threatening to sell
his farm and move to Australia where his freedom to farm would not
be impaired.

Addressing a National Leadership Training Conference of the Future
Farmers of America at the Jefferson Memorial in Washington gave me
an opportunity to talk about Jefferson's love of the land and his unique
capacity to serve as a model for young farmers. Jefferson, I pointed out,
was skilled in the areas that appeal to young people. He excelled at
outdoor sports and was a fine horseman. He was an expert violinist, a
good singer, and he liked to dance. He graduated from William and
Mary College at the age of twenty, became a member of the Virginia
House of Burgesses at twenty-six, and did most of the drafting of the
Declaration of Independence at the age of thirty-three.

Jefferson was a scientific farmer; he was intensely interested in re-
search, conservation, and farm machinery. At Monticello, he grew as

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 427

many as 32 different vegetables season after season. He tried to adapt
and domesticate many plants, shrubs, and trees. He invented a plow that
was long the best of its kind. He developed a seed drill, a hemp brake,
and improvements on a threshing machine.

Far ahead of his time, he tried to prevent soil erosion by plowing on
the contour, and by experimenting with various types of crop rotation.
He helped set up agricultural societies, and he tried to get a professor of
agriculture on the faculty of the University of Virginia.

Just after his retirement as Secretary of State, Jefferson wrote, "I re-
turn to farming with an ardor which I scarcely knew in my youth."
And when he was again back at Monticello after having served two
terms as President, he said, "No occupation is so delightful to me as the
culture of the earth."

If Jefferson were to return today, I remarked, he would be astounded
beyond measure by the changes he would see in our agriculture. Many
of these changes would amaze, fascinate, and please him. But he would
be greatly disturbed about some economic, sociological, and political
changes that had occurred in agriculture in the past quarter century.

It was Jefferson who said, "To preserve our independence, we must
not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must take our choice
between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude."

Did these efforts have any worthwhile effect? I'm sure I don't know.
Maybe, in the words of Paul, I was fighting like one beating the air.
But I know I couldn't live with myself unless and until I had done all
that was reasonable to aid in this struggle for a strong economy.

Even the President exploded on this issue and at one conference of the
National Security Council was reported to have said, "Damn it, when
are you going to learn that national security and a sound economy are
the same thing!"

35

Third and Goal

The new 86th Congress, it was reported, was teeming with ideas on
what to do about agriculture* The freshmen members, so the rumors
ran, wanted action. They had plenty of ideas and they'd soon show up
in a big batch of farm bills. More than 60 Congressmen, again accord-
ing to the grapevine, wanted to get on the House Committee on Agri-
culture; there were nine vacant seats.

At the cocktail parties and other get-togethers for the Congressmen
you heard groups in this corner or that speculating on the chances for a
Brannan Plan approach, a food stamp plan, a two-price plan for wheat,
even government's buying up farms and holding them out of production
for the needs of the future.

As the customary confusion attending a new Congress began to be
smoothed out toward the end of January, the word was that this time
there would be farm legislation. The "big two" of the Congress, Major-
ity Leader Lyndon Johnson and Speaker Sam Rayburn, had got to-
gether with Harold Cooley and said flatly: A new farm law was a must
— there would be one — and the Democrats had the horses to carry the
load. What kind of law? Well, it was too soon to tell, but it looked as
though a Brannan-type Plan had the inside track.

Naturally, we had other ideas.

In football terms, we had pushed our agricultural program inside
our opponents 5 five-yard line. For us, it was third down and goal.
Actually, it was almost "make it this time or never," because the next
few months of 1959, were, practically speaking, our last chance to
complete the program. The 86th Congress would hardly give us the
farm legislation we would seek in i960 — not in a presidential election

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 429

year and especially when their hopes of gaining the White House were
high. They would be out to pass their program, not ours.

So it was pretty close to now in 1959 or never. But with the Congress
nearly two-thirds Democratic, our job was like trying to move the ball
against a team that outweighed us 50 pounds to the man. I wondered
if anything short of a political bulldozer could move that Democratic
line.

An added difficulty was that many of the new Congressmen didn't
understand the farm problem at all, and there was no time to educate
them. Some had been elected as liberals committed to a general philoso-
phy of more government action, rather than less as we were urging.

Not only was ours a fight against time; it was also a fight against
losing what had been gained. We had liberalized the corn program, but
unless we could do the same for wheat, the effectiveness of the corn
program would be lessened, perhaps even to the extent of becoming
almost useless. Commodity programs are interdependent; they cannot
always stand alone. But Congress had refused to move on wheat in
1958, How could we force the Congress to act in 1959? Was there
some weak spot upon which we could apply such intense pressure
that action would have to follow?

The one massive soft spot that I could see was the fact that the old
program was so obviously a failure. If we could lay out the fallacies in
the existing program for wheat especially, but for tobacco and peanuts,
too, so plainly, so starkly, as to shock the nation, the Congress might
have to move.

This became the strategy.

The President had agreed to send up another special message on agri-
culture. We prepared drafts in the USDA and Don Paarlberg worked
them over in the White House. We poured into them all the persuasive
logic derived from six years experience.

On January 29, the message went up. It got to the point immedi-
ately:

There are produced, in the United States, some 250 farm commodities.
The law has required that prices of twelve of these be supported at pre-
scribed rninimum levels. It is this requirement, together with the level of
required support, that has created our farm surplus problems. Farmers
who produce cattle, hogs, poultry, fruits, vegetables, and various other
products the prices of which are not supported — as well as those who
produce crops the prices of which are supported at discretionary levels —
have generally experienced growing markets rather than a build-up of
stocks in warehouses.

Three of the twelve mandatory products (wheat, corn, and cotton)

430 CROSS FIRE

account for about eighty-five percent of the Federal inventory of price-
supported commodities though they produce only twenty percent of the
total cash farm income.
The price-support and production-control program has not worked.

The message, I thought, showed the naked discrimination of the
existing program far better than anything hitherto produced.

Here were the facts.

Wheat — Of the 1,400,000 wheat growers, 823,000 or 60 per cent,
had allotments of 15 acres or less. They produced about 13 per cent of
the crop. Ten per cent had allotments of 100 acres or more. They pro-
duced 55 per cent of the crop. Obviously, most of the government ex-
penditures for wheat were for the benefit of 10 per cent of the farms.

Cotton — Of the 948,000 cotton growers, 692,000 or 73 per cent had
allotments of 15 acres or less. They had about 25 per cent of the acreage
allotment. The remaining 27 per cent, 236,000 farms, had 75 per cent
of the allotment. By far the major part of the government expenditures
for cotton was for the benefit of one-fourth of the farms.

Rice — Of the 16,700 farmers with acreage allotments, 4600, about
25 per cent, had allotments of 100 acres or more and about 75 per cent
of the total allotment.

For these wheat, cotton, and rice producers with allotments of 100
acres or more, the expenditures per farm in fiscal year 1959 under the
existing program were averaging:

Wheat

$7,000 per farm

Cotton

$10,000 per farm

Rice

$10,000 per farm

The message nailed down other points, too.

The control program didn't control. Despite acreage allotments and
marketing quotas, despite a large soil bank program and despite massive
surplus disposals, government investment in farm commodities would
soon be at a new record high of $9,100,000,000.

The program was excessively expensive. When the 1958 crops came
into government possession, the cost, in terms of storage, interest and
other charges on supported crops, would exceed a billion dollars a
year. This about equalled the amount being spent by the Federal
Government on all water resource projects in the United States includ-
ing power, flood control, reclamation and improvement of rivers and
harbors. It was more than the total appropriation for the Department
of Commerce, or Interior, or Justice.

The net budgetary outlay for programs for the stabilization of farm

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 43I

prices and farm income in the current year was estimated to be
$5,400,000,000 — equal to between 40 and 50 per cent of net farm in-
come — and more than the total expenditures of any other agency of the
U.S. government except Defense and the Treasury.

The message forthrightly put its finger on one of the factors re-
sponsible:

Our farm families deserve programs that build markets. Instead they
have programs that lose markets. This is because the overall standards (the
parity concept for the programs that they have are outdated relationships
that existed nearly half a century ago. This was before sixty percent of our
present population was born.

At that time it took 106 manhours to grow and harvest one-hundred
bushels of wheat. In recent years it has taken not 106 but 22. Since then
the yield of wheat has doubled.

Wheat, indeed, was the number one problem. We simply could not
continue with the wheat program as it then existed. Though harvested
wheat acreage had been cut by over 20,000,000 acres since 1949,
artificial pricing, combined with good weather, had produced by far
the greatest wheat surplus in all history.

This faulty program had spread the wheat belt all over the U.S.
Stimulated by price support, wheat acreage had increased in areas of
high cost; throttled by allotments, wheat acres had been cut back in
areas where production was most efficient. This didn't make sense, but
it was what had happened.

What could be done? The message presented two alternatives.

Either clamp down more rigorous controls on wheat producers than
the nation had ever had before — more controls than Congress had ever
been willing to impose before — or move toward market exp a nsion and
greater freedom to produce and compete.

The controls we had didn't control, largely because those provided
by earlier Congresses had been watered down by later Congresses.
First, Congress had exempted from controls wheat growers who pro-
duced 15 acres or less of wheat. Then the allotments which used to
be figured on planted acres were based on harvested acres. The mini-
mum national allotment for wheat was 55,000,000 acres; under the law
it could not be set lower. But the surplus was now such that if we ap-
plied the formula in the law to wheat acres in 1959 (the formula under
which the wheat allotment went down as wheat supplies went up), the
national allotment would have had to be zero acres — no wheat pro-
duction in igsg at all!

To make controls work we'd have to plug the loopholes — increase

432 CROSS FIRE

the penalty for overplanting — ruthlessly set acreage allotments and mar-
keting quotas at crippling levels.

That was one approach — more controls — more regimentation. We
didn't favor it, but we would go along with it, under certain conditions,
if Congress insisted.

A far better approach, we believed, would be to provide wheat
growers with a program that moved toward freedom to produce and
compete for markets.

When such a program became fully effective we could eliminate all
acreage allotment and marketing quotas for wheat. Price supports
would be tied to realistic market conditions. High quality wheat would
sell in the markets at premiums above support.

Wheat could begin again to compete on its own merits. Better land
use would result. High hazard land would go out of wheat and into
pasture and hay.

Farmers would begin again to manage more effectively their farms and
their crop rotations. There would be an adjustment of acreage between
such competing crops as corn, grain sorghums, and soybeans. Similar
changes were needed for tobacco and peanuts, but for these two crops,
the problem had not reached nearly such serious proportions as for
wheat.

These were our price support proposals. In addition, we asked for
extension of the Conservation Reserve for three years; extension of Pub-
lic Law 480; increased emphasis on research, especially research to
develop new markets and new uses for farm products; state-sharing
in the cost of programs to meet problems caused by drought and other
natural disaster; extension of the Sugar Act; and legislation relating
to the Rural Electrification Administration and the Farmers Home Ad-
ministration.

The presence of one completely new item in the message pleased me
immensely. Some nine or ten months before this, I had broached the
possibility of using our surplus food as a powerful instrument in the
Free World for building a durable peace. The proposal had been sub-
mitted to the Randall Commission on Foreign Trade Policy but had
been turned down. Randall wanted to try to move the surpluses through
regular market operations. So did I; but I didn't think it could be done
fast enough by this method alone; so when it came time to draft this
new agricultural message by the President, we broached "Food for
Peace" again, with supporting arguments.

Two days before the message went to the Congress, I spent a couple
of hours at the White House giving the Republican legislative leaders a

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 433

preview of the recommendations. As an added attraction, I urged that
the "Food for Peace" recommendation be included in the message.
Sentiment had evidently increased in support of this, though there was
still some question as to how the proposal might best be expressed and
incorporated.

On January 28, the day before the message was to go up, we had
another session at the White House, going over the entire draft. At
the last minute we added this special paragraph:

As we move to realistic farm programs, we must continue our vigorous
efforts further to expand markets and find additional outlets for our farm
products, both at home and abroad. In these efforts, there is an immediate
and direct bearing on the cause of world peace. Food can be a powerful
instrument for all the free world in building a durable peace. We and
other surplus-producing nations must do our very best to make the fullest
constructive use of our abundance of agricutural products to this end. These
past four years our special export programs have provided friendly food-
deficit nations with four billion dollars worth of farm products that we
have in abundance. I am setting steps in motion to explore anew with other
surplus-producing nations all practical means of utilizing the various agri-
cultural surpluses of each in the interest of reinforcing peace and the well-
being of friendly peoples throughout the world — in short, using food for
peace.

Though we did not fully appreciate it at that time, thus was born
one of the most far-reaching and popular ideas to come out of the
Eisenhower Administration.

The President's message was heard. We knew that by the reaction of
some of our opponents. Representative Fred Marshall of Minnesota, Dem-
ocratic member of the House Ag Appropriation Subcommittee, key-
noted this response by saying, "He [the President] blamed every-
thing on the past, and provided nothing for the future." Between the
lines, Marshall was admitting that the truth about the program really
hurt.

Meantime, as in the past, the Department of Agriculture swung into
action to tell the country just what it was we were a sk ing.

The same day the President's message went to the Congress, I left for
San Francisco for a speech to the California Beet Growers Association.

The development of this industry is one of the most fascinating
chapters in the history of American farming; a story of vision, initia-
tive, struggle, of repeated failures and final success; a story of the
triumph of perseverance by free men.

In the early days of the nation, men of vision watched with keen

434 GROSS FIRE

interest the development of the beet sugar industry in Europe because
our young country was then almost completely dependent on foreign
countries for sugar. If beet sugar could be produced in the United
States, great advantages would accrue, a new industry and a new
and profitable crop bringing new life to the economy.

The first recorded attempts to establish a beet sugar industry in this
country were made in the 1830s. The Beet Sugar Society of Philadelphia
in 1836 obtained 600 pounds of beet seed from Europe. But the seed
was planted too late and no sugar resulted. Then about 1839 a factory
at Northampton, Massachusetts, succeeded in producing some 1300
pounds of beet sugar; but after operating for about two years, this
factory closed its doors.

In the next few decades no less than thirteen beet sugar factories
were established in widely separated localities from Maine to California,
One after the other, they all failed.

One of these attempts that naturally interested me concerned the
efforts of the Mormon pioneers to establish a beet sugar industry in
Utah. In those early days, more than a century ago, the people of
Utah, including some of my progenitors, were buying sugar for $1
a pound — at a time when a dollar went a great deal further than it
does today. After a study of beet sugar operations in France, Mormon
Church officials organized the Deseret Manufacturing Company, in-
tending to establish the industry in Utah. The company bought a com-
plete sugar manufacturing outfit and shipped it from France to New
Orleans. It arrived in April 1852. By boat the plant was carried up the
Mississippi and Missouri Rivers to Fort Leavenworth. There it was
loaded into covered wagons. In November 1852, the seventh month
after being landed in New Orleans and after many difficulties and
hardships, the equipment reached its destination.

I wish I could say that this immediately resulted in the birth of a new
industry in Utah and in the nation. Unfortunately, history records that
the promoters lacked sufficient technical knowledge. The factory pro-
duced only inedible syrup. Not until over a quarter of a century later
was a beet sugar plant in the United States established on a truly suc-
cessful basis. That was in 1879 at Alvarado, California.
I told these facts to the audience. Then I added:
"Without taking anything away from California, however, I am happy
to say that the people in Utah also persisted and eventually developed a
flourishing sugar beet industry.

"In the past 80 years, the sugar beet industry has had a steady growth.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 435

Some 64 factories now produce over 2,000,000 tons of refined sugar
annually."

The sugar beet industry was in a solid position. Production in 1958
was about 15,300,000 tons — about 30 per cent above the average of the
preceding 10 years and only slightly below the all-time high of 1957.
Yields per acre in the past two years had been higher than ever before.
Nevertheless, producers were not burdened with surpluses. Why? Be-
cause the industry had done a good job of expanding production and
markets simultaneously.

Its operations had been realistically geared to market conditions.

Much of our sugar being imported, the sugar program, of course,
could not be used as a model for wheat, cotton, corn, rice, peanuts, and
tobacco programs — except in this respect: The sugar program had been
realistic.

It had been adapted to the particular circumstances surrounding
U.S. production of sugar. The same could not be said of the past pro-
grams for wheat, corn, cotton, peanuts, rice, and tobacco.

The contrast was all too plain.

In 1958, the U.S. harvested 16 per cent more acres of sugar beets
than the ten-year average (1947 to 1957). But in 1958, compared
with the average for the same ten years, U.S. farmers harvested 10
per cent fewer acres of corn, 16 per cent fewer acres of wheat, 25
per cent fewer acres of peanuts, 26 per cent fewer acres of rice, 34
per cent fewer acres of tobacco, and 46 per cent fewer acres of cotton.
This argument, showing that "controlled" crops had lost markets and
gone head over heels into trouble, while the "free" crops had prospered,
I thought a good one, and it found a place in other speeches.

Livestock, too, was a good example. Livestock was not only the bright-
est part of the farm picture — it was also the most expandable part of
our farm market. Cattle, hog, and poultry producers had stayed free of
supports and controls. The average person was eating about 50 per cent
more beef, about twice as much chicken, and two and a half times as
much turkey meat as he had twenty years before.

Citrus was another example. The average American was consuming
60 per cent more citrus than he had twenty years ago. But he was eating
26 per cent less wheat flour and 15 per cent less wheat cereals.

Free the controlled commodities and they too will grow, find markets,
and prosper.

Jamie Whitten could hardly wait to get at us. We were scheduled to
go before the House Committee on Agriculture on February 1 o, and the

436 CROSS FIRE

Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry on February 16, while
we wouldn't be appearing before Whitten's Subcommittee on Agricul-
tural Appropriations until weeks later according to the probable schedule.

But on the morning of February 3, the Subcommittee on Agricultural
Appropriations held what Chairman Whitten called a "pre-hearing." It
immediately became obvious that Whitten had just one thing on his
mind: to rake us over the coals for our handling of cotton exports. He
accused Assistant Secretary Marvin McLain and me of not complying
with the law and he simply refused to extend to us the courtesy of hear-
ing out our explanations.

Whitten, who came from the big cotton-producing state of Mississippi,
had been pressing us from our first years in office to sell cotton more
competitively on the world market regardless of the size of the subsidy
required — the difference between the artificially supported U.S. price
and the free competitive world price. While I was sympathetic, I recog-
nized that our sales of cotton abroad at reduced prices would have to
fit into the over-all pattern of world trade. I've already explained the
difficulties we had in getting the State Department to go along with the
first modest export program for cotton in 1955. We managed eventually
to win approval for a very substantial export program and cotton ex-
ports for the two years preceding the 1958-59 marketing year had been
very satisfactory. In 1958-59, however, exports had declined, and this
was paining Congressman Whitten — at least, he wanted it to appear
that way, though I couldn't help wondering if he hadn't seized on this
simply as a convenient club with which to beat the Administration's
farm program over the head.

The core of our conflict was simply this: Whitten contended that we
must export 5,000,000 bales or more of cotton each year, whereas I con-
tended that our goal was to achieve an average of 5,000,000 bales or
more over a period of years.

While I didn't want to get into a second guessing contest with anyone,
I did object strongly to the mistaken notion that the Department of
Agriculture had been, or was, dragging its feet in the cotton export
program.

The facts were that since the beginning of the 1956-57 marketing year
and through the 1958-59 marketing year, our cotton exports would
total about 16,500,000 bales, an average of 5,500,000 bales a year. In
the testimony and debate at the time the export legislation had been
discussed, 4,500,000 to 5,000,000 bales had been regarded as a "fair
historical share of the world market" for U.S. cotton. Of course this 20

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 437

estimated "share" was not a static figure. It could vary up or down from
one time to another.

During the 1956-57 marketing year we had exported 7,600,000 bales
of cotton, the highest since 1933. In 1957-58, we had exported
5,700,000 bales.

The total of more than 13 million bales in these two years added up to
an outstanding record of successful, but subsidized competitive exports
— far above the expectations of many cotton men.

Cotton exports could not be expected to continue at these high levels.
Foreign stocks, which had been low, were built up to high levels. This is
one reason why our exports during the current marketing year had
fallen off. But the record showed that our export programs had been
effective. They had moved a lot of cotton in the interests of the Ameri-
can cotton grower and in line with the expressed wish of the Congress.

However, the Congressman, in an especially owly mood that day, was
throwing his weight around with reckless abandon. He said to McLain,
"I was formerly a district attorney and I have seen a lot of people who
violated the law, and I have never seen one that didn't have an excuse.
And that is what we get from you."

He badgered McLain, a mild-mannered Iowa farmer but who wears
no man's collar, to the point where McLain after one exchange, shot
back: "I think after you sleep overnight, you will really rely a little more
on what is said."

If I'd had the authority I'd have given Marvin a raise then and there.

Already the determination of the Democrats to ram a bill down the
President's throat had begun to splinter on the rocks of reality. They
knew theoretically what they wanted: higher prices through raised
price support and controls. They didn't know how to translate theory
into fact.

Lyndon Johnson said the bill had to meet two specifications: reduce
expenditures at least a billion dollars a year below the present ouday;
and boost prices and income for farmers. It sounded good; I just won-
dered what his magic formula would be. It turned out he had none.

By the time we went to the hearing before Cooky's Committee, Wayne
Darrow, editor of the popular and friendly-to-the-Democrats Washing-
ton Farmletter, headed his issue of February 14,

A gloom so thick that you can cut it with a knife has developed in the
Farm Bloc about the prospect of new price support legislation this year.
Men who would lay you odds a month ago that a Democratic farm bill

438 CROSS FIRE

would pass Congress this year are now cautiously predicting that some-
thing—maybe "not too much"— will pass by August, i960.

The hearing went fairly well. We were given a thorough quizzing on
our proposals, but to me it seemed readily noticeable that Cooley, long
one of our bitterest opponents on the question of giving farmers more
freedom, was deeply concerned over the wheat situation. He and several
others of our critics now at last appeared ready to concede that the
wheat program had failed. Whether we could induce them to take the
next step and endorse our proposals only the future would reveal

This paragraph from Darrow's account of the hearing interested me.

We're thumbing through our sheaf of notes to glean what may be sig-
nificant. "Benson relaxed. Has the appearance of having them on the hip."
"The Democrats don't seem to know what they want — they're sniping at
him." A man nudges us. "The Democrats are shooting too much at Benson.
He's only the product of years of public incitement against farm programs.
He's only a symbol of public discontent — call it misunderstanding if you
want to — with farm programs. Cut off Ezra's head, and you'll still have
the public on your neck."

Going before the Senate Committee the following week, we again
found deep concern. Chairman Ellender wanted the Department to
present a bill embodying our recommendations. We had decided against
that. Our only chance of success, we felt, lay in a Committee-proposed
and endorsed bill. I told Ellender in effect, "We have no bill. But we'll
help the Committee draft one if that's your wish."

As was the case with the House Committee, many of the Senators
seemed convinced the wheat program had fallen into bankruptcy — but
like the Congressmen, they found it amazingly difficult to decide how to
manage the receivership*

Last Days of a Heroic Figure

On the evening of February 26, I entered Walter Reed Army Hospital
for my annual check-up, a two-and-a-half -day affair. John Foster Dulles
was there, too. He, like Taft six years before, was dying of cancer.

Dulles had been operated on for abdominal cancer in 1956. On Feb-
ruary 13, 1959, during an operation for hernia, further cancerous
growth had been discovered. Now he was taking massive radiation treat-
ments.

The Secretary came to my room the second evening of my stay in the
hospital, and we had a good long visit. There's something about two
patients visiting together in a hospital that seems to unite them in a

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 439

close bond. Dulles and I had enjoyed very friendly relations in the Cabi-
net, despite some differences over the best ways of disposing of the agri-
cultural surpluses without interfering with international trade, but here
in the hospital we learned more about each other in an evening than
we had before in many meetings over six years.

Slow and measured in speech and gesture, ponderous and grave in
manner and movement, Dulles was one of the most majestic men I have
ever known. Now, still leonine, though an aging, weakened lion, he
somehow portrayed serenity and dignity more than ever. This big rock-
like man I held in high respect and deep affection. I had reason to be-
lieve he thought well of me, too.

On one occasion when he had invited me to his home we got into a
discussion of the future. "When you complete your job as Secretary, 55
he asked, "would you be willing to accept a position as one of the per-
manent United States delegates to the United Nations?"

Though I was touched, I replied that I felt obligated and would be
anxious to return to my work in Salt Lake City.

On this evening in Walter Reed, Dulles and I spoke of our faith in
the after life and our basic religious beliefs. When I mentioned how
earnestly we were all praying in his behalf and that his name had been
placed in the Temple in Salt Lake City and that the First Presidency
and the Council of the Twelve were remembering him in their prayers,
his eyes filled. "Ezra," he said, "you know that I regard prayer as a
priceless help."

The next day we had planned to have another visit, but because he
had suffered something of a relapse we didn't get together. I wish we
could have had that second talk.

During the ensuing weeks I kept in touch as well as I could with the
reports of the Secretary's fight against the silent killer. Memories of his
courage and kindness often filled my mind now that he was battling
against odds far greater than any he had ever faced on the international
front.

In view of his impending death, it was natural, I suppose, that I
should associate him particularly with an event a month later when, on
the morning of March 29, I was privileged to preach to thousands of
worshipers assembled for the Sunrise Service in the Hollywood Bowl. It
was Easter— commemorating the Resurrection— the day of promise
to all mankind but especially to the dying.

Starting from our hotel that morning at 3:30, we found the roads
leading to the Bowl already jammed with automobiles. Before 5 A.M.,

440 GROSS FIRE

20,000 persons were seated and waiting to pay homage to the Risen
Lord.

I should like to set down here what I said that morning because the
greatest tragedy of our age is that so much of mankind has never had or
has lost contact with the most important Figure who ever walked this
earth — the Way, the Truth, and the Life — and has never had or has lost
sight of the most important facts in human history. I had decided to
make my remarks largely a simple, unadorned statement of those facts.
They needed no elaboration. They had been verified by eyewitnesses, his-
torical records, and a living tradition far beyond any other facts of that
period.

I spoke from a huge shell surrounded by 10,000 lovely calla lilies. The
pulpit rose about seven feet above the floor of the stage, and this also
was blanketed with lilies.

"Jesus ^ the Christ — the Savior and Redeemer of the world — the very
Son of God.

"He was born the Babe of Bethlehem.

"He lived and ministered among men.

"He was crucified on Calvary.

"His friends deserted him.

"His closest disciples did not fully understand his mission and they
doubted — one of the most trusted denied knowing him.

"The pagan governor struggling wtih his conscience, after consenting
to his death, caused a sign to be erected over the cross proclaiming him,
'Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews/

"He asked forgiveness for his tormentors — and then willingly gave up
his life.

"He was laid in a borrowed tomb.

"An immense stone was placed over the opening.

"In the minds of his stunned followers, over and over, echoed some
of his last words, c . . . be of good cheer; I have overcome the world. 5 "

The sun was rising in the east, its rays of light and warmth vanquish-
ing the darkness and chill of night. On a pond in front of the stage
reposed a flotilla of boats and barges, filled with lilies. How fitting it
seemed to testify to our Savior's resurrection surrounded by these beauties
of nature.

"On the third day there was a great earthquake.

"The stone was rolled back from the door of the tomb.

"Some of the women, among the most devoted of his followers, came
to the place with spices and '. . . found not the body of the Lord Jesus. 5

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 44I

"Angels appeared and said simply: 'Why seek ye the living among
the dead? He is not here, but is risen.'

"There is nothing in history to equal that dramatic announcement.
c He is not here, but is risen. . • .'

"He broke the bonds of death for all of us. We, too, will be resur-
rected — our spirits will be reunited with our bodies.

"Later the Risen Lord appeared to other women, to the two disciples
on the road to Emmaus, to Peter, to the apostles, and 'After that/ as
reported by Paul, 'he was seen of about five hundred brethren at
once. . . .'

" 'And last of all, 5 said Paul, 'he was seen of me also. . . .'

"Thus Christ's resurrection was abundantly verified. The witnesses are
many."

After this recital of bare facts, I referred to His teaching.

"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that
hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute
you."

I pointed out that Jesus liberated man from the world, by the pure
gospel of love. He demonstrated that man, through a love of God, and
through kindness and charity to his fellows, could achieve his highest
potential. He lived the plain and sure doctrine of service, of doing good
to all men, friends and enemies alike. His charge to return good for
evil is still the greatest challenge to the mind of man. At the same time
it is man's greatest weapon.

And I said that despite the world's crises — Korea, Indochina, Leb-
anon, Quemoy, and Berlin — the greater crisis by far was that we might
forget the Lord.

How much protection would our missiles and nuclear weapons prove
to be if we did not take at face value the Lord's injunction: "Thou shalt
love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and
with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thy-
self?"

Do we not act sometimes, I asked, as if we could get along without

God?

Do we turn our hearts and our minds — yes, even perhaps our souls
at times— toward false gods— money, success, comfort, self-indulgence,
pride, power?

Do we sometimes regard human brotherhood as a pretty theory rather
than as a divine fact? Have we truly learned the lesson that man to man
we must act not as enemies, not just as acquaintances, not even as mere
friends — but as brothers?

44 2 CROSS FIRE

Would not this put an end to hatred? Would not this foster peace on
earth?

"We must learn and learn again that only through accepting and
living the gospel of love as taught by the Master — only through doing
His will can we break the bonds of ignorance and doubt that bind us.

"We must learn the simple but glorious truth that we can now re-
order our lives — can experience the sweet joys of the spirit now and
eternally, if we will but lose ourselves in doing His will, if we will place
Him first in our lives.

"Yes, our blessings multiply as we share His love with our neighbor.

"To the extent that we stray from the path marked out for us by the
Man of Galilee, to that extent are we failing in our individual battles to
overcome our worlds."

And finally I said:

"Yes, my friends, Jesus is the Christ. He lives. He did break the bonds
of death. He is our Savior and the Redeemer, the very Son of God.

"And he will come again — '. . . this same Jesus, which is taken up
from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him
go into heaven.'

"May God hasten that glorious day, I humbly pray in the name of
Jesus Christ, our Risen Lord. Amen."

On April 16, the radiation treatment having failed to halt the disease,
John Foster Dulles laid down the burden of his long public life by re-
signing as Secretary of State. Christian A. Herter, six feet four, and big
in spirit, former Governor of Massachusetts and later Under Secretary
of State, moved up. Within 38 days after his resignation, Dulles died
at Walter Reed on the morning of Sunday, May 24. He was buried
from the Washington Cathedral at 2 o'clock the afternoon of May 27,
in a short and simple Episcopal service made up almost entirely of
hymns and reading from the Old and New Testaments. A cortege of
about two hundred limousines, carrying diplomats and official repre-
sentatives from some twenty nations, wound its way to the Arlington
National Cemetery. The foreign representatives included Chancellor
Konrad Adenauer, head of the West German government, and Andrei
Gromyko of Russia.

Only in his last days did the nation know what a great hero in the
battle for world peace John Foster Dulles really had been. We learned
that on at least one occasion, though his pain was so terrible that he
was practically bent double in agony, still he went before the public and,

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 443

standing straight upright, delivered a scheduled speech in firm, strong
tones and words.

President Eisenhower said in a proclamation that was no less heartfelt
for being official: "This eminent American was a leader in his genera-
tion, a champion of righteousness, strong for truth, a builder of good and
noble purpose whose eyes are fixed on the highest goals which men
are given to see ... by his integrity, his sense of duty to country and
mankind, his unceasing quest for peace, he earned the regard and respect
of all men of good will.

"From the example of John Foster Dulles, brave in living, brave in
dying, let us each hold with all fervor to the verities which inspired him/ 5

A deeply religious man, devoted to constitutional principles and a
truly outstanding figure in American public life, John Foster Dulles, in
my judgment, will take his place in history as one of the few great
Secretaries of State.

He was first in so many ways.

36

Fusdn 5 and Feudin'

In 1958 we had one of the greatest spurts in agricultural production in
history. New production records were established for fourteen different
crops. Total output rose 8 per cent — nearly twice as big an increase in
one year as in the entire decade of the ig2os. It proved the utter futility
of attempting to control farm output with the acreage allotment mecha-
nism then "at work."

Of course it also meant price troubles in 1959. By mid-February hogs
were down to $15.40 — $4.30 below the average price 12 months before.
Wheat was $1.74 — off 18 cents. By May chickens were down to 15^2
cents a pound — off about 4 J/2 cents from a year earlier. Turkeys were
down about 5 cents, and the farm price of eggs at 25 cents a dozen had
dropped almost 13 cents.

My ephemeral popularity of 1958 was fast sinking. Many critics,
momentarily subdued if not silenced in 1958, now climbed back on
their soapboxes.

At the appropriations hearings before the House Subcommittee on
March 18, H. Carl Andersen of Minnesota and I had an exchange
which I considered highly distasteful. Our approaches to the farm prob-
lem seemed to be diametrically opposed.

He was for more government in agriculture; I was for less. He in-
sisted on government control and regimentation. I contended farmers
should be free. He apparently felt that sentiment was growing in support
of my position and resented it.

For my part, I had reached the point where I walked out of hear-
ing before this subcommittee with a great sigh of relief. The discussions
were almost always heavily political, and for that reason frustrating

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 445

and largely a waste of time. These hearings were the most disappointing
experience I had annually in my official duties.

Jamie Whitten was convinced I lacked sympathy for and understand-
ing of the agricultural problems of the South. Carl Andersen held the
same opinion of me as regards the Midwest. As for my view of them, I
guess I felt they didn't understand the problems of U.S. agriculture as
a whole.

Certainly the various polls and other expressions of opinion by farmers
and farm leaders in recent months could have been taken to indicate
that Whitten, Andersen, Cooley, Young, Humphrey and their associates
were fighting a cause that most farm people themselves no longer
favored. The Farm Journal with a circulation of over 3,000,000 in all
parts of the country, published the reports of a massive poll early in
1959 inviting its readers to tell the Congress what to do about price
support programs.

This nation-wide poll showed that 8 out of 10 of the farmers wanted
greater freedom and less government in farming. 1 In the wheat states,
too, most of the replies were for more freedom. In Kansas 76 per cent
voted for more freedom, in North Dakota 59 per cent, in Oklahoma 80
per cent, in Montana 79 per cent, in Washington 81 per cent.

The voice of some American farmers was getting louder and louder.

A questionnaire sent to agricultural economists at the land-grant col-
leges indicated that 80 per cent of the economists who replied believed
that "any laws further ham-stringing the free market will hurt the
farmer, the consumer, and the nation."

In November 1958 corn farmers had voted almost 3 to 1 to eliminate
corn acreage allotments and lower the level of price supports.

In urban circles, too, there seemed to be a mounting rebellion against
the farm program. An editorial in Life magazine bluntly said: "The
whole farm support program is a colossal failure. The only sensible
thing to do about it is to get rid of it, stop it. Why go on pouring good
money after bad?"

1 Fifty-five per cent of those replying to the poll voted for "no supports, no controls,
no floors, free market prices; get the government clear out."

Another 15 per cent favored emergency supports only "to prevent disaster from
a huge crop or sudden loss of markets; floors set at, say 50 per cent of parity, or
75 per cent of the average three-year market price and no production controls."

Another 8 per cent wanted adjustment supports "such as 90 per cent of the
average three-year market price,'* permitting gradual adjustment to normal markets
and moderate production control when necessary to ease adjustments.

Only 22 per cent wanted more government price help. This broke down into 14
per cent who favored a return to supports at 90 per cent of parity or more and 8
per cent who asked for production payments.

446 CROSS FIRE

Not for a moment did I believe in such a drastic change. But it
showed the danger that existed — the resentment that was steadily grow-
ing against the costs and ineffectiveness of the existing programs.

To boil the problem down to its bare essentials and make it more
easily understandable, I dictated a one-page statement for Congress,
editors and publishers, farm leaders and others who might be considered
influential in this area. I am convinced that "The Farm Dilemma" still
represents the essentials of the problem.

THE FARM DILEMMA

The economics of the farm dilemma is simple— it is the politics of the
problem that is baffling. What farmers want and need is less government
in the farming business— less politics in agriculture.

Four-fifths of agriculture is free of government controls and doing fairly
well It is in the areas where government has been most solicitous and has
interfered most that there are real difficulties. Futile attempts by govern-
ment to control production and fix prices at artificial levels are the cause.

Despite repeated Administration recommendations, the old rigid pro-
gram is still in effect on a very few crops with only slight changes. It is not
the Benson program, yet the Secretary of Agriculture must administer it.
It was devised during the great depression and revised during the war. To-
day we have neither depression nor war. But we do have a rapidly chang-
ing agriculture which is undergoing an irreversible technological revolution.

The old basic crop legislation, still on the books, is outmoded and fails
of its objective. It has placed ineffective bureaucratic controls on farmers,
destroyed markets, piled up surpluses, and imposed heavy burdens on tax-
payers. It does not fit the needs of the small farmer— 56 percent of our
farm population.

Yes, the economics of the farm problem is simple — less government in
farming. Quit trying to fix prices unrealistically from which flow the twin
evils of production for government warehouses and control of farmers.
Emphasize markets, increased efficiency and competitive selling. Eliminate
government's strangle-hold on agriculture.

This is the solution.

Congress must not postpone longer the action needed. The existing, out-
moded farm laws must be changed. Until Congress acts, agriculture will
be burdened with too much government, too much politics and too little
common sense.

The Congress seemed to find it well-nigh impossible to settle on a
program.

Farm legislation was becalmed on a sea of confusion. Congressmen
from the city seemed to want to dismiss the farm problem with a muttered
"plague on both your houses." One farm-minded lawmaker was reputed

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 447

to have said as regards the various proposals for action, "You almost
have a majority against you before you start."

Early in March the freshmen Democrats held a weekend get-together.
If nobody else could write a farm bill, they would themselves. But they
couldn't agree either. In fact, a few weeks later when the House Agri-
cultural Committee scheduled a hearing to enable the new members to
present their proposals, it had to be postponed because the newcomers
didn't show.

The Democrats seemed so disorganized that I felt it would be possible
to get legislation if we could persuade a sizable group of the Republicans
to unite in a vigorous stand. In an effort to bring this about, I met with
the Republican members of the House Agricultural Committee. The
ranking Republican member on this Committee was now Charles B.
Hoeven of Iowa, replacing Bill Hill who had not been returned to Con-
gress. Despite my urgent appeal, Hoeven, it was obvious, could be
counted on for no more than token support. Worse, a number of
Republicans on the Committee had tentatively worked out a wheat bill
which they claimed was the best the Committee could be expected to
approve. When I had read it, I threw up my hands. It was so weak, so
watered down, and such a hodgepodge of compromises as to be worse
than nothing*

Well, at least, we knew now the extent to which many of the members
of our own party would support the President's recommendation — and
it was not encouraging.

We redoubled our efforts, held numerous conferences at the White
House, on Capitol Hill, and within the Department. I urged our Re-
publican legislators to make speeches in the Congress daily, if necessary,
pointing out the tragic seriousness of the wheat problem and putting the
blame squarely on the Democratic leadership for not moving forward
with farm legislation. I even broached the possibility of the President's
talking with Lyndon Johnson to see if he could be persuaded to intro-
duce a bill himself that the President could sign.

It really seemed to me that the Democratic and Republican leaders
in Congress were almost completely frustrated. Unable to propose any-
thing better than the Administration was recommending, they still did
not have the courage to adopt our proposals.

Meantime, the opposition had conceived a strategy for attacking the
Administration by making me out to be an enemy of rural electrification
— about as silly a charge as could have been made. As though I could
have forgotten that as a youngster on a farm in Idaho, I had milked
cows by hand, fetched water by the bucket, and studied my lessons by

448 CROSS FIRE

the light of a kerosene lamp. We had no radio or television, no refrigera-
tor or freezer, no milking machine or water pump, no electric lights or
telephone.

Later, electric power brought light, then a telephone, and running
water came to the farm. Along with all others, I hailed it enthusiastically
as an emancipator — it freed us from drudgery.

I know what it meant to my mother to have electric power at her
fingertips, for farm boys and girls to have enough light to read or study
by at night. Often, I had seen the worn faces of farm men and women
glow with new life at the mere prospect that electric power would soon
be available.

Nobody had to sell me on the great work of the Rural Electrification
Administration.

To understand the controversy, you must know what REA is and
how it operates. REA was set up in the mid- 1930s when only about one
farm in ten had electrical service. It was, and is, a lending agency. It
neither owns nor operates any electric distribution system. Its functions
are to provide guidance and to lend government money at low rates of
interest to cooperatives, power districts, cities or private companies so
that they can provide electricity in rural areas. Most of the borrowers
are cooperatives.

By early 1959 about 96 per cent of the farms in the United States
were electrified. The backbone electric system to serve nearly all of rural
America had been completed — one of the principal objectives of the
Rural Electrification Program had been achieved. In short, REA and the
rural electric cooperatives had come of age; they were strong enough
and mature enough to begin to stand more on their own feet without
government subsidy; and because I had plainly said so, this ridiculous
charge had been made against me.

While REA borrowers would continue to need large amounts of
capital funds to meet their increasing load demands, a large part of the
demand for capital was coming from the increasing requirements of
non-farm consumers. Over one-half of the power sales of REA borrowers
now was to such consumers and official records showed that three out of
four new consumers were non-farm.

For these reasons, some changes in REA financing were logical and
prudent. President Eisenhower in his Budget Message had proposed that
the 2 per cent interest rate at which REA since 1944 had been borrow-
ing money from the government be increased. Prior to 1944, REA paid
a rate of interest that covered the cost of money to the Treasury; we

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 449

saw no reason why it should not do so now on new loans. We did not
propose to disturb the interest rates on any existing contracts.

But why should new loans be made by the government to REA
cooperatives at 2 per cent when the government itself had to pay 4 per
cent or more to meet its needs? Other farmer cooperatives were paying
the going rates and operating profitably; why not the REA co-ops?

The President had also suggested that legislation be enacted to broaden
the sources of capital for the REA programs; this would assist borrowers
in obtaining funds from private sources to finance future operations.

In support of the President's recommendation, I proposed a perma-
nent financing plan for the REA electric and telephone system. Here is
what it consisted of:

1. Authorization for these rural systems to have their own bank — their

own lending institution — which they could operate and ultimately
own entirely.

2. Authorization for them to have their own national policy board to

direct the affairs of their bank. Members of this board would be
nominated by the rural electric and telephone borrowers. Plans for
organizing and operating the REA bank would be carefully devel-
oped to meet the particular capital requirements of the electric
and telephone borrowers.

Although such a system was operating successfully in the Farm Credit
Administration with its farmer-owned and -operated banks and local
lending institutions, some of the co-op leaders and their Democratic
supporters shrank in horror from these suggestions. A sample of their
language:

"That crowd' 5 — I assume that this included me — "is hell-bent on
handing us over to the Wall Street bankers — the Wall Street control
power companies, and they are not going to rest until they do it." This
was a grade of baloney that didn't even merit slicing. It was completely
refuted by the record of REA progress since 1953.

The REA had been in existence for about 24 years. Almost one-third
of all its electric loans had been made in the six years since 1953 when
we took office. REA's rural telephone program had been in existence
about ten years. Four-fifths of all telephone loans had been made in the
past six years. On January 1, 1953, some 45 REA borrowers were
delinquent in payments; in April 1959, just one was delinquent. The net
worth of REA electric borrowers had more than doubled since 1953. If
I had plotted a conspiracy to harm REA, I had failed miserably.

450 GROSS FIRE

It was said that I had interfered with the administration of REA. The
Secretary of Agriculture had been responsible for the general direction
and supervision of REA since 1939. When I became Secretary in 1953,
I made no change in REA's internal policies or procedures.

In 1953, President Eisenhower transmitted to the Congress a reorgani-
zation plan for the USDA as it affected REA. It was substantially the
same as that previously advocated by the Truman Administration. It
transferred to the Secretary all functions of REA and authorized him to
delegate the performance of transferred functions to any other agency
of the Department.

After this reorganization took effect, I delegated the REA functions
to the administrator of REA to be exercised under the general direction
and supervision of the Secretary. To assist me in carrying out the direc-
tive and supervisory responsibilities in connection with USDA credit pro-
grams, I set up an office of Director of Agricultural Credit Services
and Kenneth Scott, a highly qualified credit expert, was appointed to it.

In June 1957, I had asked the REA Administrator to submit certain
large loan applications to the Director of Agricultural Credit Services
of the Department for his information and for discussion and counsel.
I am just old-fashioned enough to believe that there is safety in counsel.
This arrangement did not affect the loan-making authority of the REA
Administrator in the slightest degree. He continued to make all loans.

Now, I was being accused of interfering with the approval of a partic-
ular loan application — a $42,000,000 generation and transmission loan
application submitted to REA in 1957 by Hoosier Cooperative Energy
of Indiana.

Again, this was false. I had never interfered with any REA loan ap-
plication. This Hoosier loan application had been neither approved nor
disapproved — because REA had not had a proper application from
Hoosier Cooperative Energy on which it could take action. If and when
REA received such an application, it would be processed like any other.

The only real bone the opposition had to pick with me was that I con-
sidered it politically, economically, and morally wrong for successful
organizations like REA borrowers, with sizable reserves and increasing
revenues, to keep dipping into the Federal Treasury at the taxpayers'
expense to the tune of millions of dollars per year for interest payments
alone.

We had some mighty rough hearings on the REA. Senator Hubert
Humphrey introduced bills to take REA loans out of the Secretary's
jurisdiction. This, of course, was his right. But in their efforts to em-
barrass me, he and others of the opposition overreached themselves. At

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 451

one hearing, after I had testified, and before the Committee was per-
mitted to ask questions of me, Clyde Ellis, the head of the National Fed-
eration of Rural Electric Cooperatives, was put on the stand and I was
forced to sit there while Mr. Ellis made a blistering tirade against me.
As usual, these tactics backfired; I had the distinct feeling that most of
the Committee before the end of that particular session recognized the
merit in our position, aided by what we had said and by the obvious ex-
aggerations of Mr. Ellis.

Nevertheless, the Congress did pass a bill, a political gimmick pure
and simple, to take REA loans away from my direction and supervision.
The President promptly vetoed it with a sharp rebuke. But with many
legislators fearing the power of the electric co-ops and with the issue
seemingly made to order to embarrass the President, the Administration,
and me, the Democrats decided to ram it down our throats.

On April 28, the Senate voted on the veto. I spent the entire day at
home, a good deal of it on the telephone, encouraging Senators to back
the President. When the vote was taken, we lacked just two votes of
those needed to sustain.

I said to Flora, "Six of our Republicans lacked the courage to stand
up and support Ike. Any two of them could have reversed the issue."
Flora did her best to soften the blow.

This happened to be a day on which I needed encouragement. The
Senate vote had left me in the dumps, because, to put it bluntly, it was
compounded of cheap political maneuvering and blatant falsehoods. I
needed my wife's faith and courage to lift my depression, and as always,
she did not fail me.

So now it was up to the House to sustain or break the President. The
issue was scheduled for Thursday, April 30. Our friends in Congress,
the White House, and friendly farm leaders worked their heads off to
get the needed votes.

On April 29, I spent the entire day building support for the veto.
With members of the USDA and White House staff, I went to the
Capitol for a meeting with Charlie Halleck and Les Arends, the Minor-
ity Leader and Whip. We contacted Congressmen who might be waver-
ing or who we believed to be under severe pressure to desert the Presi-
dent; we arranged for others to use their influence on their colleagues.
We pointed out that one source of the President's strength was his un-
broken record of sustained vetoes. If his "magic touch" should now
seemingly be lost, the cost in the future could be extremely heavy. With
the huge Democratic majorities in the Senate and House, we might have
to depend more than ever in the months ahead on the President's veto

45^ CROSS FIRE

power to prevent the passage of reckless and dangerous legislation. This
was much more than a struggle over RE A; it would undoubtedly in-
fluence the future course of the Administration.

On Thursday, April 30, in a climate of extreme tension, almost the
entire House of Representatives turned out for the vote. The Democrats,
sure that they had the votes to override and needing no last minute
converts, brought the issue to its climax with practically no debate. If
they could hold their rank and keep 11 of the 16 Republicans who had
backed the original bill, they would be over the top.

The voting began; it was close and it stayed that way right down to
the wire. Of the 436 members of the House, 426 voted — 280 to over-
ride, 146 to sustain. It requires two-thirds to override a veto. A switch
of only four votes would have reversed the decision and beaten the
President's veto.

We had won. Nine of the 16 Republicans supported the veto, whereas
only one Democrat who had been against the original bill changed his
position and voted to override. The entire Administration was jubilant.
Congratulatory telephone messages from members of the Cabinet, Re-
publican Senators and Congressmen, and faithful friends began to pour
in.

I phoned the President. "Never before," I told him, "have I seen our
team work more smoothly and cooperatively."

The President left me in no doubt that he too was overjoyed. We were
like a couple of kids celebrating a hard-fought football game.

There was progress, too, on another front. At about this time, the
nation's attention was drawn to the seven outstanding young men se-
lected to be the pioneers of the space age for the United States. Much
more quietly, without such staggering costs or soaring devices to catch
the imagination, people working in agriculture were pioneering also.

Those involved in the Rural Development Program, attracting little
attention and glamourless, were doing a job that is tremendously im-
portant to the welfare of the nation. They were trying out ways of
bringing about economic, social and technical adjustments in rural
areas. The changes needed to help farmers over the long run were long
run alterations and improvements in their way of life.

We had received from Congress a small appropriation — roughly half
of what was requested — to begin the program on a pilot basis. Despite
the shoestring operation, we now had thirty states, about two hundred
rural counties, involved. It showed signs of becoming the technique by
which the American dream of progress and independence through self-

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 453

help could be realized in low-income farm areas. Rural people were pro-
moting new industries, off-the-farm jobs, and revised educational pro-
grams. There were symptoms of health everywhere: a milk-processing
plant in northern Mississippi; hardwood industries in eastern Maine,
Wisconsin, and elsewhere; conservation and land drainage work in South
Carolina; a new health clinic in a Kentucky county; new packing and
manufacturing plants; educational and training opportunities opened up
in Washington State and Missouri; tourist industry promotion in the
glorious land of Upper Michigan.

The job was being done smoothly, by dedicated ambassadors from the
farms to the farms. Rather than pouring out money in price supports,
we were pouring foundations for supports of the finest kind — human
ones.

Variety

How wonderful, and how necessary, is life's variety. Without its little
spices the main course would be intolerable.

Just as you can't sit in one position indefinitely, so you can't keep
your mind and efforts locked in one endeavor without respite.

So, government headaches and farm problems or not, life and its
variety went on — fortunately.

During the spring of 1959, two police officers appeared at our front
door in Crestwood with the news that a Puerto Rican association, hav-
ing just held a convention in Chicago, had adopted a resolution calling
for the assassination of high government officials.

"Our information is that three Puerto Ricans have been assigned to
do the job in the Washington area," one of the officers said. "We
haven't been able to establish their identity or to find out anything about
their plans. There may be nothing to it, but we're going to keep you
under surveillance for a few days."

I went outside with them and walked around the grounds surrounding
our house so that they could familiarize themselves with the grounds
and the approaches to the house.

All that night two plain-clothes officers sat in a car near our home.
Next morning a couple of policemen followed me to the office and con-
tinued to shadow me all day. Others checked around our home periodi-
cally during the day.

The surveillance continued during the next night and the following
morning two uniformed officers were again waiting to trail the Depart-

454 GROSS FIRE

ment limousine downtown. Plain-clothes detectives covered the Depart-
ment throughout the day. The guard was not lifted until the danger
was thought to be past.

It seemed quite unreal that anybody might actually be gunning for
me, even though the Secret Service and the police took the possibility
very seriously. But the "pinch me, I'm dreaming" quality of the situation
brought home to us anew the public aspect of our lives.

It's pretty evident, I guess, that even without threats, members of the
Cabinet receive an inordinate amount of VIP treatment. This can go to
your head. From this standpoint, I was fortunate in having certain
members of the Congress as my hairshirt. If this had shown any indica-
tion of failing, however, Flora had a favorite little story to help keep me
in line. It concerned a businessman who returned home after a day at
the office, and as he greeted his lovely wife, he enthusiastically said, "My
dear, you will never guess what happened to me at the office today."
She said, "No, I am sure I can't guess, but it must have been wonderful;
you look so happy."

"Yes, my company made me a vice president."

"Well, that's wonderful, dear, but you know vice presidents are
pretty common these days."

"Common? They are not common."

"Yes, they are," she said, "There's a wholesale grocer here in town that
has a vice president in charge of prunes."

"That can't be right."

"It is right."

It bothered him all the way to the office the next day. Determined to
find out, he called the wholesale grocery and said to the operator, "I
want to talk to the vice president in charge of prunes."

"Surely," said the girl. "Packaged or bulk?"

One of the special pleasures of that spring was the opportunity to
speak at the annual meeting of the National Council of the Boy Scouts
of America in San Francisco. There, I appealed to the men of America
to give our boys the models of manhood and the direction and compan-
ionship that are beyond price. Our own children had more than repaid
our love (as if, after the very fact of their existence, there could be any
further "payment"). But Reed, now living just across the Potomac in
Alexandria, Virginia, was not above writing his mother a letter in which
he said: . . . just a note to let you know how much I love and appreciate
all you do for me — your constant looking out to see that I get the latest
information, your encouragement, and complete devotion to my wel-
fare . . . I hope the kind Lord will keep you a long time on this earth

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 455

to continue to bless and inspire others and to see some of the bread
come back that you've cast upon the waters . . • And at about the same
time, one from Mark in Salt Lake City: . . . / just finished reading your
wonderful letter. You give such good advice . . . you can see the big
things in life, the things that are really important, and you pass these
eternal truths on to your children. I earnestly hope and pray that as you
so effectively bent the twig, so may I always grow.

In talking with the Scout group, I thought about these things and, in
contrast, the remark of a little boy who was asked^ after announcing
where he was off to, "What's a summer camp?"

"Oh," he answered, "one of those places where little boys go for
mother's vacation."

And I thought, too, of the demands of adult life, demands which,
however worthwhile, are paid for in sacrificed time. Years before I had
read of the gift a rich industrialist had given his sixteen-year-old son. A
man who could have given his son anything that money could buy —
an automobile, a sailboat — asked himself what a sixteen-year-old boy
needs most for Christmas. The boy found when he came down from his
room on Christmas morning, a plain envelope with his name on it
Inside, it read:

To my dear son,

I give to you one hour each weekday and two hours of my Sundays
to be yours to be used as you want it without any interference of any
kind whatsoever.

Lovingly,
Dad

One of the genuine honors given me has been the privilege of working
with American boys and young men in Scouting, a wonderful character-
building movement. I started out as an assistant scoutmaster in a little
country town in southern Idaho* What a challenge it was to work and
to lead twenty-four boys in the first Scout troop in this little rural com-
munity! Rewards for effort? Every day of my life has been enriched
by that association and service.

At one Monday night Scout meeting when we were planning a hike
over the mountain 35 miles to Bear Lake in another valley, one little
twelve-year-old raised his hand and said, very formally, "Mr. Scoutmas-
ter, I would like to make a motion." That was a new thing in scouting,
or at least it was for me. I said, "All right, what?" He said, "I'd like to
make a motion so we will not be bothered with combs and brushes on
this trip, that we all clip our hair off."

Three or four of the older boys started to squirm in their seats. They

45^ CROSS FIRE

had reached that critical age in life when they were beginning to notice
girls, and a clipped head, they knew, would be no asset. We put the
question, and it carried, with the three or four older boys dissenting.
Then it was agreed that if they didn't submit willingly, there were
other ways of enforcing the rules of the troop. They submitted. Then,
true to form, never forgetting, one of them said, "How about the
scoutmasters?"

It was our turn to squirm. But the following Saturday at the county
seat, two scoutmasters took their places in the barber's chair while the
barber gleefully went over each head with the clippers. As he neared
the end of the job, he said, "Now, if you fellows would let me shave
your heads, I'd do it for nothing." And so we started on that hike,
twenty-four boys with heads clipped, and two scoutmasters with heads
shaven.

Talking about scouting, thinking about our children, and suddenly
beginning to recognize that the end of government service was not very
far off, I found myself falling easily into reminiscence. And looking a
little more closely at the children.

Six years before, Flora and I had feared the possible impact of
Washington on our children. I can only explain that to live up to Mor-
mon practices and principles in the world of today requires fortitude;
as it always has. While we knew all our children possessed these qualities,
we knew, too, that they would be under unusual pressures because of
my temporary governmental position. There was the remote danger that
this environment might be a softening influence upon their character.

Because of this anxiety, we were greatly pleased one day by something
Beverly, who had made her vocal debut at Anderson House, did entirely
on her own initiative. She had been taking a university class in Washing-
ton on the Old Testament from a teacher who was severely critical of
the prophets and the material in the Bible — so that much of his instruc-
tion ran counter to the revealed word of the Lord as we understand it.
Beverly decided to change her status to that of an auditor in the class.
She gave a statement to her teacher during a written examination ex-
plaining her action:

I am remaining in the class, because an awareness of others' beliefs
tends to strengthen my own . . .

While many of your teachings have challenged my faith, they have also
made me appreciate more deeply my concept of God, my understanding of
the purpose of life, and my faith in revealed religion through prophets of
God as recorded in the Old Testament.

You may be interested to know that we, the Church of Jesus Christ of

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 457

Latter-day Saints (more commonly known as Mormons), have an added
witness of the divinity of the Bible and the mission of Jesus Christ, in an
inspired volume of scripture known as the Book of Mormon. Because of
this scripture and the other inspired writings of our Church, it is, I am
sure, more profitable for me to study the revealed word of God which I
know to be true, than the theories of men many of which I believe to be
untrue. My trip in the Holy Land in 1957 further confirmed my belief in
the writings of the prophets and the divine mission of Jesus Christ.
I hope you can understand and appreciate my position.

Knowing a little what it takes to stand up as an individual, Flora and
I felt a surge of pride in Beverly's courage and forthrightness.

That season, we were overjoyed that Barbara and her husband Bob
had been blessed with a third daughter. Then Beth graduated from
junior high school. With a shock, I realized that our youngest child was
entering a new phase of her life. We had no youngsters any more, only
young ladies and adults. Now our children had the babies. They stood
in their generation where Flora and I had stood some thirty years before.

That year, too, Flora and I had the pleasure of attending a dinner
along with all the other Cabinet members and their wives at the home
of Vice President and Mrs. Nixon. Dick and Pat, a gracious host and
hostess, lived in a beautiful and comfortable house that formerly had
been the home of Joseph E. Davies. That night, with the entire Cabinet
seemingly in an amiable mood, proved to be an especially enjoyable
evening. The Nixons had a stereophonic phonograph and Flora and I
were quite carried away by this, our first experience with stereophonic
music.

Intermingled with the harmonious family sounds came a sour note in
the political family: the Strauss affair.

In 1958 after Secretary of Commerce Sinclair Weeks resigned from
the Cabinet, the President designated Lewis L. Strauss as his replace-
ment.

Strauss epitomized the American success story. Beginning as a sales-
man in his father's wholesale shoe firm, he had a real desire and capacity
for public service. He became staff aide and secretary to Herbert Hoover
when Hoover was Chairman of the Commission for Relief ip Belgium.
Returning to private enterprise, Strauss entered the banking business
and before the end of the 1920s had become a partner in the well-known
and highly successful firm of Kuhn, Loeb, and Company.

With the outbreak of World War II, Strauss served in various im-
portant capacities in the Navy Department, where he attained the rank

458 CROSS FIRE

of rear admiral President Truman thought so highly of him that he ap-
pointed him one of the five original Commissioners of the Atomic
Energy Commission;, in which capacity he served until the expiration of
his term in 1950. Three years later, President Eisenhower named him
Chairman of the AEC.

Being a vigorous and dedicated man and holding one of the most
responsible and important positions in government, and also being
devoted to the principle of increased participation by private enterprise
in the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, Strauss made
staunch friends and bitter enemies. He was described as being too con-
servative and too prone to act without consulting the other commis-
sioners. His biggest handicap, however, was the antagonism developed
against him by certain powerful members of the Congress, because they
felt he was withholding information on items of defense.

It was rather plain that if the President nominated him for reappoint-
ment as Chairman of the AEC, he probably would not receive Senate
confirmation. Strauss retired from the AEC on June 30, 1958, Not wish-
ing to lose his unique abilities, the President appointed Strauss as
Secretary of Commerce, and he took office on November 13, 1958,
This was a recess appointment, subject to Senate confirmation when
Congress reconvened.

In 1959 a bitter and prolonged fight developed, with the opposition
to Strauss being led by Senator Clinton P. Anderson, On June 19, after
many weeks of dubious hearings and debate, the Senate by a very close
vote of 49 to 46 refused to confirm him. In my opinion this was not a
question of Strauss' capability; it was a political issue.

I felt indignant enough to issue a statement: "The fight that has been
waged to prevent the confirmation of Lewis L. Strauss is one of the most
tragic episodes in the entire history of the United States Senate. Because
the controversy was based on a personal feud, resulting in deep-seated
hatreds, emotion was substituted for reason. The result has deprived the
government of the service of a competent, loyal, and dedicated man of
character. This unfortunate action will make it increasingly difficult to
attract much needed men of stature to public service in government."

Politics, indeed, makes big people sometimes seem very small. The only
consolation was that Lewis Strauss seemed to come out of his "defeat"
larger than he went in.

37

Another Veto, Another Summer

At my urging, the President had sent another short message to the Con-
gress on May 13, pointing out the immense importance of wise wheat
legislation and appealing for prompt action so that wheat producers
would have a new program before they began to plant their winter
crop later in 1959.

The message suddenly transformed apathy into frenzied activity. The
House Agriculture Committee changed its agenda, brought up the
wheat bill and quickly approved a wild measure that nobody liked. Its
major feature was a 30 per cent cut in acreage and a return to 90 per
cent of parity price support. Then the Committee met again, took a
second look at the bill, blanched at its own handiwork, and decided to
begin all over again.

The Senate Committee also woke up enough to report out a wheat
bill. It provided price supports at 65 per cent of parity for farmers who
did not cut their present acreage allotments, and 80 per cent support
for cuts of 20 per cent or more.

What happened after that was pure Gilbert and Sullivan.

Let the Washington Farmletter describe it:

Senate and House Ag Committees have been marching up and down
mountains all week in their quest for an emergency wheat program that
Benson says he doesn't want. Some want a bill that won't be vetoed. Others
want one so favorable to growers that Ike will veto it. Still others want
nothing at all — "let the old cat die."

Democrats want something to get them off the hot spot But there's
complaint in the ranks that the leadership isn't aware of the political
implications. Republicans are enjoying the show.

460 CROSS FIRE

Late in May the Senate did pass a bill modeled after the one approved
by the Senate Agriculture Committee. It provided for price supports
geared to cuts in acreage. A farmer who planted his full allotment
would get support at 65 per cent of parity. If he cut his acreage 10 per
cent below the allotment, support would be at 75 per cent. If he cut
acres 15 per cent, support would rise to 80 per cent.

In the House, meantime, the Agriculture Committee reported out a
bill under which acreage allotments would be cut 25 per cent and sup-
port raised to 90 per cent of parity. This was totally unacceptable to us;
it was just more controls and more price fixing.

Representative Page Belcher, Republican of Oklahoma, offered a
compromise that looked far better. It left support at 75 per cent of
parity, and made no cut in allotments. It would permit all wheat
growers to vote in referenda, not just those growing over 15 acres of
wheat as at present, and bring these small growers also under controls
when controls were in effect.

Though the USDA and the Farm Bureau pushed hard for the adop-
tion of the Belcher Bill, we could not overcome the heavy Democratic
majority and the House passed the 90 per cent of parity, 25 per cent
cut in wheat allotments bill as approved by the House Agriculture Com-
mittee.

Now, of course, the Senate and House measures had to go to con-
ference. The conferees agreed on a watered-down bill closer to the
Senate than the House measure, but still a monstrosity.

The bill provided for a 20 per cent wheat acreage reduction. But
this, of course, was practically meaningless because the price support
would be raised to 80 per cent of parity, thus stimulating larger produc-
tion on remaining acres.

It would have perpetuated the inequities of a wheat program that
denied acreage to the efficient producer and encouraged the inefficient
wheat producer to greater production efforts, further aggravating the
wheat surplus problem, both from the standpoint of quantity and qual-
ity.

The bill did nothing to give small family-sized farms a vote in a
wheat marketing quota referendum. Tobacco farmers with one-tenth
of an acre allotment were allowed to vote on their programs but wheat
farmers with as much as 15 acres were not permitted to vote. The bill
imposed additional restrictions on farmers when the nation-wide cry
among farmers was for fewer. It was unjust, unrealistic, and unwanted
by farmers and other taxpayers. There followed the usual speculation
about a veto.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 461

We were spared the necessity of making a decision, because the high
price support and strong controls advocates in the House overreached
themselves. When the conference bill came before the House, that
chamber turned it down by a vote of 214 to 202. On the winning side
were all but seven of the Republicans and a good many city Democrats,
plus a sprinkling of first- and second-term Democrats from the northern
farm states. Eight of the liberal Democrats who had voted for the House
bill a week earlier now turned down the compromise measure. They
refused to accept a 20 per cent cut in acreage allotments with price
support at 80 per cent of parity.

It looked as though any real hope for wheat legislation in 1959 was
finished.

But then, in one of those sudden unpredictable and sometimes almost
inexplicable switches, for which the Congress is noted, a wheat bill was
passed.

This came about not with any expectation that the measure would
become law, but simply because the Democrats felt they needed to drive
the President into another veto. Some of the House leaders managed
to sell Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic leadership of the Senate
the idea that the smart way out of their dilemma was to accept the
original House bill, which slashed acreage allotments by 25 per cent and
raised price support to 90 per cent. When the Senate did in fact accept
the House bill, it proved one thing conclusively: The Congress could
have passed an acceptable wheat bill anytime it wanted to. If Sam
Rayburn and a few other House leaders had driven half as hard for
the passage of a bill acceptable to the President as Lyndon Johnson
drove for a bill he knew to be totally unacceptable, we could have had
wise and realistic legislation on wheat or any other farm commodity in
time to set agriculture on a more prosperous road long before the end of
the Eisenhower Administrations.

Yes, the Congress did finally pass a wheat bill — and also one for
tobacco.

The wheat bill was progress in reverse. The tobacco measure would
simply have frozen the existing program. This would not prevent the
loss of further markets abroad, nor help to regain those already lost.
Its only virtue was that it would keep the situation from becoming
worse.

So again, we were confronted with the old problem. For the third
time in four years I was going to have to ask the President to veto
major farm legislation, and once again he did not lack for advisers to
tell him he simply could not do it.

462 CROSS FIRE

Charlie Halleck, who had now succeeded Joe Martin as Republican
leader in the House, the same Charlie Halleck who had been one of
the heroes of the Agricultural Act of 1954, joined those counseling
against a veto.

Let the wheat bill become law without your approval, they told the
President. This will show the country that responsibility for the bill
rests completely with the Democrats. We made our recommendations
and they turned them down. Let the consequences fall on their heads.

This line of reasoning so shocked me that I argued with a good deal
of heat that "the President has a moral responsibility as well as a legal
right to prevent bad legislation from being foisted upon the people "

As for the tobacco bill, many of the President's advisers urged him
to sign it. Though the tobacco bill was not as bad as the wheat meas-
ure, I could see no point in the President's approving it.

I argued vigorously against most of the White House staff of ad-
visers that both measures should be vetoed, but at the very least, the
wheat bill should be rejected and the tobacco bill, if necessary, per-
mitted to become law without the President's signature and in the face
of a strong Eisenhower statement on the failure of the Congress to meet
the realities of the tobacco problem.

Whether because of this or for other reasons, some of the White
House staff changed their minds. They now urged the President to
combine the wheat and tobacco bills in one veto message. This, I
thought, made good sense because it would have maximum impact
on the country and the Congress. There was still time to enact wheat
and tobacco legislation. In fact the history of 1956 and 1958 showed
that Congress could respond to a veto by giving us all or at least part of
the legislation previously recommended. On the other hand, to have per-
mitted the wheat bill to become law without signature and to have
allowed the tobacco bill to take effect with or without signature would
have sealed off completely any hope of good legislation in these areas
for that session of the Congress.

On June 25, the President sent the veto and again it stood up.

The same day the veto message went up, I left for Europe. We
planned to attend an agricultural fair in Denmark and I had been
asked to deliver an address at Rebild Park near Aalborg on the Fourth
of July, The Rebild celebration was an annual event sponsored by
Danish-Americans to commemorate the birth of American independ-
ence. I wanted to go for many reasons, not the least important being

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 463

the desire to say some things on European soil about freedom and hu-
man dignity and American ideals.

The trip would also permit me to take another look at the common
market and to have useful visits with government officials in several
European countries as well as discussions of Department matters with
our agricultural attaches. Stopping in London to refuel, we flew on to
Paris, where two agricultural attaches met us at the airport.

Later, when we were leaving Paris, an attendant at the Swissair
ticket office proudly mentioned a cable he had received from Pan
American Airlines. It evidently intended to convey the information that
Flora and I did not drink coffee. "Madame Benson and you drink no
water, not so? 55 the attendant said. "It has been my pleasure to see that a
gallon of milk has been placed on board."

Following attendance at Food Fairs in Lausanne, Switzerland, and
Bonn, Germany, the three days in Copenhagen, Denmark, were the
climax of our trip. Not a moment was wasted. Immediately after land-
ing I held a conference at the airport. On July 2 and 3, while I made
official calls on personnel in the Danish Government and toured the
agricultural fair as the guest of the Danish Minister of Agriculture,
Karl Skytte, Flora again visited the birthplace of special meaning to her
in Koge.

Came the Fourth of July and a celebration at Rebild Park that I
will never forget.

The speakers 5 platform nestled in a compact little valley with 25,000
to 30,000 people seated on three hills looking down upon us. The ap-
proach to the stage led through a double line of state flags of the
United States, and atop the highest hills on either side of the valley,
American and Danish flags flew proudly in the breeze. The flag raising,
accompanied by stirring music from American and Danish military
bands, made an impressive preliminary to the ceremonies.

In my address, I mentioned that the tales of Hans Christian Ander-
sen had helped in the education of our six children, and that in my
office at the Department of Agriculture I had a large picture of Bertel
Thorvaldsen's statue of the Christ, a work that profoundly stirred me
when I saw the original statue for the first time in Copenhagen.

But my personal debt to Denmark went even deeper.

"I owe far more than I could ever repay to a Dane whose name was
Carl C. Asmussen (later changed to Amussen) . He was born at Koge. He
became Utah's first successful watchmaker and jeweler. Like many
Danes of yesterday, and today, his eyes were on distant horizons. Migrat-
ing to the United States, he became one of the pioneer settlers of the

464 CROSS FIRE

West. In Salt Lake City, Utah, he established a thriving jewelry busi-
ness. At Logan, Utah, he helped to build a new city. A successful
businessman, a civic leader, a man of great depth of feeling and ex-
perience, Carl Amussen was my wife's father."

It was true that I owed much to this land; it was true that all that I
had seen of Denmark through the years had been good.

And it was something unique that the sons and daughters of Den-
mark who came to America had done, in creating at Rebild a tangible
symbol of their memories of their native land. Here was the only place
outside of the United States where the Fourth of July festival com-
memorating U.S. independence had been celebrated for nearly half a
century.

It seemed appropriate to talk about the two great yearnings of man-
kind — for freedom and peace* I reminded them that Colbjornsen, one
of the fathers who helped lay the foundation of present-day farming in
Denmark, had said, "No emotion is more deeply imprinted in man
than the desire for liberty."

But simply to desire freedom is not enough. It must be won, I said,
and having been won, must constantly be protected, and rewon if
necessary: for freedom can be wrested away, or it can erode.

"As liberty-loving people we are determined to protect our freedom
against those nations and leaders of nations who have no respect for
individual liberty. These nations and these leaders have created a new
spiritual Dark Age for one-third of the world's people and they would
impose this Dark Age on the remaining two-thirds. We must not per-
mit it. The all-powerful central state for which they stand — the dicta-
tor state — is an outmoded concept which the free world has long since
discarded."

Finally I said, we must have freedom for man to grow, this was the
challenge before us in the world today.

"If we, now or in the future, shrink from facing up to this basic
challenge, there will always be others willing to find answers for us. But
their answers may not be the answers we seek.

"The new pioneering is difficult. It calls for the utmost self-discipline.
It demands that we seek wisdom, act with integrity, and accept in-
dividual responsibility.

"We of the free world have a blessed heritage of freedoom, placed in
our custody by the Almighty. Ours must be a special and constant
crusade to promote His plan of a brotherhood of men on earth."

Though I enjoy it, delivering an address always takes something out
of you; so driving back to Aalborg in the early evening and relaxing in

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 465

the beauty of the Danish countryside was sheer delight. Later we were
guests at a dinner for 600 people. After dinner the Prime Minister ad-
dressed an open-air audience at the rear of the hotel. We heard his
speech and then, because we had to leave early to catch our boat for
Copenhagen, we saw only the first of a brilliant fireworks display, remi-
niscent of the July Fourth celebration annually held on the grounds
of the Washington Monument. With fond farewells to friends from all
over Denmark and parts of the United States, we boarded the boat at
1 1 : 00 p.m. and set off for home.

Back at the office, I learned some of the interesting repercussions of
the veto. Sam Rayburn, I was told, had called Harold Cooley and the
Democratic members of the House Committee on Agriculture to his
office and told them in blunt, matter-of-fact, take-it-or-leave-it Ray-
burnesque terms that he was sick and tired of sending farm bills to the
President which he vetoed on principle. Further, he told them that
this last veto has caused the Democrats to lose stature in the eyes of the
people.

At 10:00 o'clock on the morning of July 10 I had a 35-minute con-
ference with the President at the White House, to report on the Euro-
pean trip and discuss the farm situation. When I told him how much his
vigorous leadership in fighting inflation, keeping down costs, and re-
ducing the Federal budget and debt meant to the conservatives of the
nation, he seemed highly pleased. How I wished he could be in the
White House beyond i960. Not that I wanted to occupy my Cabinet
seat beyond that date — heaven forfend — but the Nation needed his kind
of leadership. One thing about the President, he could always inspire me
with new confidence.

Leaving his office, I thought there just might be a possibility that we
could still achieve a reasonably satisfactory wheat bill in 1959. After
thinking it over carefully, I sent the President a memorandum urging
him to bring before the Congress, for the ninth time, his request for
wheat legislation. Specifically, I urged him to send a letter to Senator
Johnson and Congressman Rayburn restating his recommendations. If
this failed, he should, I suggested, take the case to the country in a
televised address immediately after the Congress adjourned.

We had a chance to follow up the veto and force the Democratic
leadership either to pass a good bill or be branded throughout the coun-
try for irresponsibly failing to come to grips with this problem. Tax-
payers, I knew from the mail and conversations as well as from articles
in the news, were fed up with a wheat program that was costing them

466 GROSS FIRE

$1,000,000 a day for storage, handling, and other charges. It seemed to
me, then, and looking back at it now three years later I am doubly con-
vinced, that the application of strong pressure at this particular mo-
ment might produce the result we had been seeking for so many years.

The strategy also had advantages for i960 which I pointed out to the
President:

It places this Administration squarely in the position of wanting to
face an issue and making the facing of the agricultural issue a major
factor in the coming campaign.

It would make it difficult for the Democratic candidate, whoever he
may be, to dodge the responsibility of his party on this issue.

It would make it difficult for the Republican nominee, whoever he may
be, to equivocate on the agricultural policy espoused by you and your
Administration.

The President, on July 28, replied that he had that morning at the
legislative meeting taken up my suggestion. Charlie Hoeven had com-
mented that this would be a completely futile gesture; "shadow boxing,"
he called it. Hoeven said that the Committee was trying to work out
some kind of acceptable compromise, and that a letter from the Presi-
dent would serve to muddy the water rather than to clear it.

"Nevertheless," the letter concluded, "I shall have one of the liaison
officers discuss the details of your letter with such people as Charlie
Halleck, Charlie Hoeven and Les Arends, to see whether or not they
can discern any advantage in following your suggestion."

To this I immediately replied:

July 29, 1959
Dear Mr. President:

The suggested procedures outlined in my letter were carefully checked
with my own staff, and by the so-called "He-Coons" made up of a solid
group of our farm friends who had lunch with you at the White House
some two years ago. This group was in the city for a two-day "off-the-
record" session.

We have been successful in placing the responsibility for the present
dilemma on wheat squarely on the back of the Democratic leadership
in the Congress. . . . The attached clipping, which you may have seen
in the local paper yesterday, is evidence that some of those most responsible
for the failure to enact further wheat legislation are trying desperately to
put the "monkey" on our backs. If we are not careful they will succeed;
hence my letter.

I do not agree that what I have suggested would be "shadow boxing"
or "muddy the water." One of our most serious difficulties has been
the fact that some of our own Republicans have either been fearful of

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 467

moving forward courageously or inclined to compromise on measures that
will not get the job done but only make matters worse,

I am pleased you have asked one of your liaison officers to follow this
matter. To me it is of the utmost importance.

With warm regard.

The effort was not made. It meant that the Congress would adjourn
without enacting a wheat program— or for that matter a tobacco and
peanut program.

The President knew how I felt. Though it was still four days before
my birthday, he sent a note.

The White House

July 3i> 1959
Dear Ezra:

I suspect I know what you'd most like as a birthday gift, but I am

not at all sure we can wangle the Congress into the proper mood. But

be that as it may, I do want to assure you of my warm congratulations,

and my best wishes always for your happiness and health . . .

Mr. K. Comes to Town

In mid-September Nikita S. Khrushchev came to Washington, prelimi-
nary to a visit by Eisenhower to Moscow planned for the following year.
When the State Department asked me to assume responsibility for a
visit by Khrushchev to our USDA Beltsville Experiment station, I, of
course, agreed, but I must say my enthusiasm for the project could
have been put in a small thimble.

By my lights, Khrushchev was, and is, an evil man. He has about
as much conception of moral right and wrong as a jungle animal.

I just couldn't picture President Eisenhower sitting down with him
and accomplishing anything worthwhile.

A great many groups in the United States, moreover, bitterly op-
posed Khrushchev's coming, and when one remembered that there
were about three million people in the United States who at one time
had been under Russian domination behind the Iron Curtain, the dan-
gers of a terrible incident which might lead to an international explo-
sion could not be discounted.

All in all, my feeling about the exchange was mainly one of wary un-
easiness. When the matter came up in Cabinet, I did raise a few of the
questions in my mind and I also expressed my fears to Douglas Dillon,
the Under Secretary of State.

Theoretically the Khrushchev-Eisenhower visits could, some thought,

468 CROSS FIRE

prove valuable in promoting world peace, but I had serious doubts.

Shortly after noon on September 15, Khrushchev arrived at An-
drews Air Force Base. The President received him with courtesy, dignity,
and marked restraint. I did not go out to Andrews nor did I encourage
members of my family to go. So it was with all the Cabinet. I watched
the procession to the White House on TV. The crowd along the
streets was large, respectful, but very quiet. Some persons wore black
armbands, a few carried signs, and there was a cross of white smoke
written in the sky by a plane.

That night, when Flora and I attended the State Dinner given the
Russian visitors by the President, I met Khrushchev for the first time.
It was a regal affair with a widely diverse guest list. Again the President's
remarks and his demeanor were reserved; he did not smile. Fred Waring
and His Pennsylvanians presented a program, "Best Loved American
Songs," which the Russians evidently enjoyed. It was an evening of
strict courtesy, but one noticeably devoid of warmth.

Khrushchev himself was the personification of Kipling's bear who
walks like a man — a short, stocky, powerful body, a round head, a full
rather coarse-featured face, a great reservoir of animal energy.
Khrushchev's is undeniably a shrewd and single-purposed mind, cun-
ning and alert. The more I studied him, the more I saw the bear. Like
those denizens of my native West, he could be playful and jovial one
moment and dangerously aggressive the next. What lay behind those
appraising eyes, the loud laugh and bluff mannerisms?

At 9:45 on the morning of September 16, Khrushchev arrived at the
Plant Industry Building in Beltsville accompanied by his wife, two
daughters, his son and son-in-law, and a retinue of Secret Service men
and Russian officials. I introduced him to Dr. Byron Shaw, the head
of our Agricultural Research Service, to Reed and his wife May and
to Beverly, who were with me.

Then through the record-breaking battery of news cameras we went
into the auditorium where I made an address of welcome, and, because
I almost couldn't help myself, several pointed references.

"Our farmers are free, efficient, creative and hard working," I said
and stressed the first adjective a bit more than I otherwise might have,
"I like to call them 'the salt of the earth 5 — truly good people. We have
vast regions of good land. And we are fortunate that our climate favors
production of nearly all that we need and want."

Our people, I said, had been investing in agricultural research since
the first settlers carved farms out of the wilderness. Those first farmers
depended almost entirely on their own initiative — on the work of their

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 469

own hands applied to their own lands. But very soon our government,
our universities, and our industries joined forces with farmers. They
had built a great network of research laboratories and experiment
stations to promote agricultural progress and preserve our natural
resources. I told about the way research is conducted and how it is
carried to the people through our free press; and how new ideas — the
findings of agricultural research — are freely available to everyone in-
terested.

"What you are looking at in Beltsville, Mr. Chairman, is one of the
central stations in the development of 'new ideas' for American agri-
culture. American farmers welcome new ideas. They have always been
quick to adopt them. In many instances they originate the ideas them-
selves, for our farmers are the primary motivating force in our agri-
culture.

"In putting these discoveries into practice, our farmers have trans-
formed American agriculture under our capitalistic free enterprise sys-
tem. They have developed an agriculture unequded anywhere in the
world in its total efficiency, productivity, and prosperity.

"We believe that food can be, and should be, an agency of peace.
We are using our abundance for peace. We want to share knowledge
for peace. We believe that knowledge shared is not diminished but
multiplied. In this spirit, we are glad to show you some of our new
ideas in the making."

As I finished I thought, And I hope you get the message.

Khrushchev made no response.

Dr. Shaw and his corps of scientists took over.

When we left the auditorium, at Khrushchev's invitation, I rode
with him and Henry Cabot Lodge to the Dairy Building. Here the
scientists showed him some of our breeding and management work
with dairy cattle, hogs, sheep, and turkeys; and demonstrated the latest
method of measuring the amount of back fat on hogs, using electronic
devices developed by our research prople.

Breaking his silence, Khrushchev asked a few questions about the
breeding experiments. Then he began to make comments. There were
about three hundred newspaper, TV, and radio personnel in attend-
ance and suddenly with one of those mercurial changes so characteristic
of him, Khrushchev began to show off before the photographers. From
the strong, stolid, silent spectator, he became the hearty, blustering,
effusive buffoon, joking and wisecracking, even lecturing. He tried very
hard for laughs but he did most of the laughing himself .

At the end of the Beltsville demonstrations, he went back to Wash-

470 GROSS FIRE

ington in his car while Reed rode with Mrs. Khrushchev and her party
back to Blair House where the Russians were staying.

The morning in one way had been very successful. Khrushchev, I
felt sure, could not fail to be impressed with our research, particularly
with what he had learned about the productivity of our milk cows and
other livestock. Though he had tried a few times to belittle our ac-
complishments by grandly announcing, "We do better than this/' or
"I know all about that," his bombast lacked conviction. We both knew
from many reports and statistics the great gap that separated U.S. and
Russian agriculture. This morning, however, KLhrushchev had seen
some of our capabilities with his own eyes.

On the other hand, the experience had been far from satisfying to
me personally. It is much easier and more natural for me to be open
and friendly than reserved and on guard. Even if I had wanted to, I
could not possibly have warmed up to the Russian leader. This was the
last time I saw Khrushchev at close range.

The coming of the Russians had put Reed in a quandary. He felt it
was a mistake for them to have ever been invited. Now that they were
here he wondered what he should do.

Conscious of the counsel of the Church he received years before as a
missionary to avoid the company of evil men unless there was a possi-
bility of trying to influence them for good while still remaining virtuous,
he was determined that if the opportunity presented itself he would
give the Khrushchev party what he considered the greatest message in
the world . . . the gospel of Jesus Christ.

At the close of Khrushchev's tour of Beltsville I asked Reed if he
would like to stay for my press conference. Reed declined, feeling he
needed to get back to Washington. By this time the motorcade and
police escort was moving out and Reed ran to catch a ride. Spotting
my official car in the line he jumped in the front seat beside his wife,
Beverly, and the chauffeur. Then to his amazement he noted seated in
the back was Mrs, Khrushchev, Mrs. Gromyko, Alexei Adzhubei, edi-
tor of Izvestia and ELhrushchev's son-in-law, two of the Khrushchev
children and a translator. Though this group had come out in State
Department cars by some quirk of fate they were returning in the
USDA's car.

To Reed this was not coincidental. Thinking of how best to approach
them he immediately asked what they thought of Tolstoy. They re-
sponded with great praise. Reed then quoted Tolstoy's famous remark
that "if Mormonism is able to endure unmodified until it reaches the
third and fourth generation it is destined to become the greatest power

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 471

the world has ever known/ 5 Their rebuttal: "Tolstoy wrote much better
than he spoke. 55

Following up quickly Reed told them that long after communism has
faded away the Church of Jesus Christ would stand triumphant. Visibly
taken aback they commented that the old church of Russia was very
bad. Reed said that this could easily be so because that was the reason
that God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to Joseph
Smith to restore the fullness of the Gospel including revelation which
had ceased once the original apostles left the earth and men had cor-
rupted the doctrines.

In answer to Mrs. Gromyko 5 s question if he believed in God, Reed
outlined the Mormon Doctrine of the Godhead, the scriptural record of
America (The Book of Mormon) and the fact that a Prophet of God
walks the earth today.

For over 45 minutes Reed kindly but firmly spelled out the basic
tenets of Mormonism as first one and then another asked questions and
sometimes tried to rebut him. "It was good to have a Communist cap-
tive audience that couldn't walk out on me," Reed later commented,
"the car was going too fast for that. 55

Alexei, who shot back with the most comments, suggested that we let
the Communists take care of this world and the Mormons the next.
This was all Reed needed to explain the Mormon Church Welfare Pro-
gram and tell how Mormons take care of their own right here. He
added that Joseph Smith had said that any group who proclaims to
provide for its people in the next life but can't take care of their own
in this life is not one to put much trust in.

Reed committed Alexei to accept enough copies of the Book of Mor-
mon for the Khrushchev family. We delivered them to Russia on one of
our later trips.

Toward the end Mrs. Khrushchev smilingly suggested that Reed
should get a 5 (the highest grade in the Russian schools), that the
President of the Church should know this, and Reed should be in charge
of the missionaries to Russia. Reed's question as to when he could come
remains unanswered.

Knowing full well that Communists are violators of the moral law,
yet it is my faith that in the Lord's due time He will find a way to break
down this murderous conspiracy and bring the truth and liberty to
those Russians who are honest in heart. Somehow I felt that Providence
might use men of courage and conviction — such as Reed displayed — to
bring this about.

38

Agriculture under Communism

The week after Khrushchev's visit to Washington, four staff members
of the USDA, ten newsmen, Flora, Beverly, Bonnie, and I enplaned on
a trip to seven European countries. Between September 23 and October
9, we visited Yugoslavia, West Germany, Poland, the Soviet Union,
Finland, Sweden, and Norway, in that order.

All who went were selected because of the contribution they could
make to the success of our objectives: market development and good
will. The President, the Secretary of State and others had again en-
couraged me to take members of my family as a part of the "people to
people program" for building international good will All who accom-
panied me paid their own expenses for meals, hotels, etc., with no extra
cost to the government.

Of all the trade trips, this one left the deepest imprint on me, not be-
cause of markets opened or trade opportunities promised, nor even
wholly because it brought me face to face with semi-communized and
communized agriculture, but most of all because it put before my eyes
the pitiful faces of a people enslaved and into my ears the mournful cry
of those bemoaning their lost liberty.

Leaving the Washington Airport at 8 a.m., we touched down in
Argentia, Newfoundland, in the early afternoon with just time enough
for a brief tour of the Naval Air Station and some of the surrounding
countryside before taking off again. Newfoundland's cliffs rise virtually
straight up from numerous inlets, and the fishing villages seem to cling
for dear life to the hillsides, else they'll fall off. The scene is majestic.

After leaving Argentia in mid-afternoon, our next landing was across
the Atlantic where we came down through a drizzling rain at Prestwick,
Scotland, at about 2 : 40 in the morning, a mighty unfriendly hour by

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 473

my standards. Nevertheless, we were warmly greeted by the base com-
mander, Colonel Russell F. Fisher, who it turned out was a native of
Franklin County, Idaho. For no reason at all, except neighborly kind-
ness, he gave me a lovely Scotch plaid necktie.

Flying eastward, we were fast losing hours, so that by the time we
took off again at 4 in the morning Scotland time, it was still only 1 1 p.m.
back in Washington. Before we had any inclination to sleep, however,
we found ourselves encountering one of the most beautiful mornings
imaginable. It reminded me of a sunset flight into Johnstown, Pennsyl-
vania, five years before, only this time we were flying into the sunrise.
Overhead in a startlingly vivid blue sky, high billowy clouds floated like
immense balls of cotton, while below us passed the ever-changing coun-
tryside, first the patchwork of small plots of cropland, then the bald
knobs of barren fields with sheep grazing them, occasionally a small
stream or a large river, and then the majestic and glorious Alps, the
snowy peaks, jagged, cold and forbidding, and at the same time para-
doxically peaceful and serene as the sun illuminated their crags and
crevices with rainbows of color. If God's works are so mighty and so
beautiful, how much more so must He be Himself!

At 9 A.M., we came down in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. A large group of
broadly smiling and enthusiastic Yugoslavians headed by Slavko Komar,
their Secretary of Agriculture, and U. S. Ambassador Karl L. Rankin
met us and presented Flora and the girls bouquets of fragrant flowers.
Judging by the climate and the architecture of the terminal, we might
have been in New Mexico or Southern California. The terminal, sur-
rounded by flowers in bloom and vines climbing over the stucco build-
ings, could have passed as a transplant from our Southwest.

The Yugoslavs had arranged a full schedule including a visit to the
Capitol, conferences with government officials, and a tour of the farm-
ing countryside. One thing about the Yugoslavs, they're wild but expert
drivers. On this ride into the country our chauffeurs drove at such a
furious pace along narrow winding roads that I was holding my breath
half the time for fear we would run down some of the peasants, con-
vinced that we were certain to knock over some of their carts. But noth-
ing happened.

The highlight of that first day in Yugoslavia was a visit in the farm
home of a tall, sturdy man, wrinkled and weathered, well along in years,
named Gojvo Slavuic. His home, very neat and orderly, was obviously
somewhat better than the average in Yugoslavia. After we had talked a
while, Slavuic grasped my hand and looking steadily into my eyes,
asked me to carry his wishes of good will back to the people of America.

474 GROSS FIRE

He emphasized his words by pulling my hand in both of his against his
chest and shaking it up and down as he spoke. Slavuic's eighty-nine-
year-old mother, a small, vigorous and bright-eyed woman, joined her
son in effusively extending the hospitality of their home.

The next morning we called on Josip Broz, President Tito. Tito had
been a blacksmith in his youth and he still had the shoulders and arms
of men of his trade. He wore a fashionable, well-cut light blue suit with
matching shoes. Forceful, dynamic, exuding health and vitality, he pos-
sesses real personal charm. He speaks fluent English and invited me into
his private study for our conference. Later, we visited his beautifully
kept private gardens, covering many hectares of his vast estate. His huge
home, richly furnished, is surrounded by a zoo, a hunting lodge, stables,
tennis courts, grapevines, a fishpond, a greenhouse, and a recreation
building complete with bowling alley.

"You must have got on famously with Tito," Ambassador Rankin
told me afterwards. "In the two and a half years I've been ambassador,
I know of no other American who has been invited to view the private
gardens." Somehow the Communist siren song of sharing the wealth
never applies to their leaders although their system does an effective job
of creating and sharing the poverty among their enslaved people.

Next to his pet bears and assortment of hunting trophies, Tito ap-
peared to take most pride in his collection of beautiful birds; he obvi-
ously appreciates nature and the arts,

Tito is head of a totalitarian, Communist government and I never
lost sight of that fact, yet he did impress me as being sincerely desirous
of peace between east and west and of improving economic conditions
in his country. If only he could be made to see the dynamic quality of
freedom!

In Germany we continued the pattern, visiting government officials,
holding press conferences, and visiting farms. At Cologne, I formally
opened the International General Provisions and Fine Foods Exhibi-
tion. Germany had become a market for 50,000,000 pounds of U.S.
poultry during the past four years as a partial result of our market
development program.

In Berlin, we stayed the night at the elegant Warmsee Guest House,
a mansion formerly belonging to a high-ranking Nazi. From the windows
of this richly furnished house, we looked out over the gardens to the
river, dotted with the boats of the German people enjoying the Sunday
sailing.

Nobody could fail to be impressed by the stark difference between
East and West Berlin. In comparison with ultramodern stores and apart-

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 475

ment buildings in the West, the Eastern zone appeared almost un-
speakably drab and depressed. Many of the ruins were still as they had
been at the close of the war, and though the Communists had rebuilt
the street they then called Stalin Alley, this fagade was little more than
a Hollywood movie set designed to hide the miles of ruin that lay behind
it.

On Monday, September 28, we were in Warsaw. The Polish Minister
of Agriculture, Edward Ochab, and members of his staff ran the gamut
of Polish agriculture under its Communist government by taking us to
a collective farm, a state machine center, two private farms, and a new
grain mill.

The Polish farmers were clinging with all their strength to their pri-
vate holdings, resisting the government's efforts to collectivize agricul-
ture. There were in Poland at this time about 3,500,000 privately owned
farms, averaging in size from 10 to 15 acres. One of these operators,
John Studzinski, a man apparently in his late sixties, had lived through
both world wars in an area that had been terribly devastated. Yet it was
with deep pride that he showed us over his small acreage — because it
was his. As we went along, he gathered a basket of fruit, insisting that
we accept it as a token of Polish friendship for the people of the United
States. This hospitality seemed typical among the Polish people wher-
ever we went.

A Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Woloriek, who farmed about 25 acres in
a diversified operation using horses for power, were all smiles at our
visit.

Mrs. Woloriek said, "It is good that a high-ranking American official
would show interest in simple folks like us." With all my heart, I hoped
we were showing not only interest, but brotherhood and Christian love
because this, I believe, is the only force that can conquer Communist
hate.

The longing of the Poles for U.S. friendship showed up also at the
collective farm near Nowa Wiles.

Two very attractive little twin girls at this farm had been selected to
present a bouquet of flowers to Flora. While the staff of this collective
farm seemed proud of their operation, we couldn't help but notice that
the quality of the dairy cattle was low and the standard of cleanliness in
milk handling would never have passed U.S. inspection.

It puzzled me to see a Polish soldier standing guard at the entrance
to the new flour mill, though uniformed soldiers in fact were in evidence
nearly everywhere in Poland. A flour mill under military guard illus-
trated almost better than anything else could have the severe food

476 CROSS FIRE

shortage existing in Poland and the corollary that agricultural produc-
ing and processing facilities were reckoned as of the highest strategic
importance.

There were only 60,000 tractors in all of Poland at that time, of
which only a few thousand were privately owned. Although production
was not keeping pace with the population's wants, Poland was endeav-
oring to develop a better food situation. With freedom and a livelier
economy, the country could become a substantial market for U.S. fruits
and fruit products as well as for cotton and tobacco.

Minister of Agriculture Ochab said that he personally was keenly
interested in U.S. agricultural methods. In reply I described our agri-
culture and agricultural programs, closing by saying I was convinced
that the greatest farming efficiency and productivity could be achieved
only where you have private ownership of family size farms and where
you have the profit motive with freedom for farmers to grow and market
their products in a competitive market.

Then we toured the Jewish ghetto. My heart grew sad both at what
I beheld and at the memories of my visit here thirteen years before. I
remembered standing on the ruins of what was the largest Jewish sec-
tion in Europe, the Warsaw ghetto. Here 250,000 descendants of Judah
had lived prior to the war. Under Nazi rule, through forced labor, they
were required to build a wall around themselves. Later some 150,000
Jews from other parts of Europe were brought into that area. Then,
finally, the entire section was destroyed, wiped out by bombing after the
people had been robbed and ravaged.

I recalled standing on the crumbled brick and mortar and the rubble
some fifteen feet deep, with only the spire of one burned synagogue
showing — no other building in that vast area — and being told by our
guide that 200,000 bodies still lay under the rubble of those once great
buildings in this section of Warsaw.

Now in 1959 as I stood in Poland's capital, I saw a city still enslaved,
still trampled underfoot, but restive, and still, though perhaps dimly,
hopeful of eventual liberation.

I placed a floral spray on a monument being built in the ghetto, and
another one, later on, at the tomb of the Polish Unknown Soldier.

We visited a large area called "The Old Town." This section of War-
saw had been reconstructed brick by brick to preserve the traditional
culture and heritage of Poland which the Communists were attempting
to destroy; the people had a vast pride in it.

In contrast, the Palace of Culture — built by the Russians with Polish
money — a skyscraper with towers and much stone carving rising out of

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 477

the heart of Warsaw and surrounded by vast areas of rubble, was
heartily disliked. The Poles say that the best place from which to see
Warsaw is the top of the Palace of Culture "because then you don't
have to look at the Palace of Culture." This sense of humor is one of the
most hopeful signs that a sense of freedom lives on in Poland.

On Tuesday, September 29, we flew from Warsaw to Moscow. The
Soviet Union insisted on putting a Russian crew aboard to assist our
U.S. crew. This was only the second U. S. Air Force plane to fly into
Moscow since World War II. (Vice President Nixon's plane that sum-
mer had been the first.)

Flying into Moscow, perhaps because we had been so heavily briefed,
we were looking forward to new experiences. We carried much dis-
connected knowledge of Russia with us, but we knew the Russians would
only let us see the picture they wanted us to see. Each member of our
party in his different way was thinking, I'm sure, that a picture is more
than the sum of its parts. But how was this enigmatic nation going to be
more than we were told? The vast country exposed below us seemed as
flat and familiar as one of our Midwestern corn states.

The landing in Moscow was delayed because the ground control
sent us over the field a couple of times before permitting us to come
down. Later, our navigator, Major Rodriguez, told us that in one of
these passes, we had flown twenty miles west of Moscow almost losing
the radar beam. In view of the extensive and apparently automatic
anti-aircraft and anti-missile defenses surrounding this city, I shuddered
to think what might have happened.

We were scheduled to attend a service at the Central Baptist Church
early that evening, and I expected to get my bearings there, so to speak.
There was some speculation that, for this reason, the Russians might
not have been particularly interested in our landing on schedule. In any
event, we arrived in Moscow much too late to attend the services. The
real reason, however, I believe, was that Premier Khrushchev was to
leave that same evening from the airport for a visit to China, and we
were held up to avoid conflicting with his departure.

We taxied down the runway to where a sizable welcoming party
waited. The ramp was placed alongside our plane, the door flew open,
and two husky Russian soldiers stepped inside and asked for our pass-
ports. Very shortly, we were standing on the ramp illuminated by the
glaring lights of cameras from the Moscow television and being greeted
by the Soviet Minister of Agriculture, Vladimir V. Matskevich, and
other Soviet officials. I delivered a message of greeting to the large
crowd:

478 GROSS FIRE

"I welcome this opportunity to meet and talk with the people of this
great country — the people who cultivate the soil and depend upon it
for a living. People who live on the soil are much the same everywhere.
In all countries they wish one thing above all — the right to live in peace
and do their work. This is true in the United States. I am sure it is
equally true in Russia. . . ."

Mr, Matskevich was personable. With his even features, ready smile,
and Yul Brynner haircut, he made a very handsome picture of a man.
His two daughters were hostesses to Beverly and Bonnie during our stay;
our girls considered these two Russians the most attractive of all the
women they saw or met in the Soviet Union. They had much of their
father's poise and charm.

Following the ceremonies on the airstrip a large caravan of black
Russian limousines — Zims and Zizs — drove out on the runway to pick
us up. But there was still a half -hour's delay before we left the airport
because Chairman Khrushchev was driving out from Moscow to depart
for China and all other cars had to stay off the road.

The main highway into Moscow seemed to be cut out of a forest of
trees which lined the roadway. We drove for 10 or 12 miles before seeing
any lights or signs of life. Suddenly there were huge apartment houses
on either side of the road as we entered the outskirts of Moscow. The
most recently constructed apartment buildings were ten to twelve stories
high. Moments later we were driving into older sections of the city. Here
the buildings, many of them frame structures, appeared old and shoddy.
Everyone in Moscow lives in an apartment; there are no private homes.
Several of the top Party officials have estates out in the countryside which
they visit on weekends.

Both driving into Moscow and throughout our stay, we saw few
automobiles. Most people travel by bus or by subway in the heart of the
city.

The Sovietskaya Hotel where we stayed had been finished only four
years earlier, and was intended as a headquarters for visiting delegations.
Although the exterior of the hotel, with balconies and high arches,
looked as if it had been constructed forty years ago, the Soviets had
spared no expense to make the interior attractive.

The furnishings included thick red carpeting on the stairs and white
marble on the walls of the staircase. The rooms were built around the
outside of the building with an all open center similar to the Brown
Palace Hotel in Denver. In other respects, however, the interior was
quite plain and far inferior to the luxurious appearance of many U.S.
hotels. The wooden hallways creaked under our feet and the elevators

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 479

were the same slow-moving cages with swinging wooden doors that we
had found in Poland. The room furniture was heavy and rather un-
comfortable. The Voice of America was playing on the radios when we
entered our quarters for rather obvious reasons. Massive plumbing fix-
tures in the bathrooms by U.S. standards appeared rather antiquated.

The hotel personnel, while courteous, wore the dour expressions which
we later found typical of the Russian people.

The next morning our day began with a visit to the Ministry of Agri-
culture, followed by a tour of the Exhibition of Economic Achievements
of the U.S.S.R*

The Soviets had put considerable money and effort into constructing
attractive exhibition buildings to display the products of their industry
and agriculture. The area included seventy-seven pavilions, including
one for each of the fifteen republics. The various republics, which are
somewhat similar to our states, compete in building impressive display
buildings.

I was impressed with the permanent agricultural exhibits which we
saw first in Moscow and later in Kiev. The architecture was inspira-
tional, the exhibits noteworthy. The Soviets know the significant role
agriculture plays in the economy of a country. In the U.S. our experi-
ment stations and our Extension Service are permanent working exhibits.

In mid-afternoon, we visited the various departments of the All-
Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences, inspecting many of the labora-
tories and study rooms. The Soviets are especially proud of their re-
search into cold resistance and the development of hardy plants that
can thrive in the colder climate of the Soviet Union. Their agricultural
heartland, you see, is a triangular area covering the Ukraine and nearby
areas. They have been handicapped in developing new areas because of
perma-frost and poor soils.

Attendance at the Bolshoi Theater to see a production of Prince
Igor rounded out an extremely full day. We occupied box seats, formerly
reserved for the Czars but now used by top Communist officials. The
Russian operas and ballets are, of course, splendid. The elaborate scen-
ery and costuming are unduplicated in the U.S. For example, to see the
fire on stage in this production of Prince Igor, gives one the feeling that
the whole place is going up in smoke. But as in most everything, they use
their arts and artists to cleverly subvert other nations.

The Bolshoi Theater's interior with its red velvet-covered seats and
red velvet curtains, and gold trim around the boxes, seemed luxurious
indeed; but even more impressive was the fact that it had a dining
room adjacent to our box, where refreshments were served between acts-

480 CROSS FIRE

Minister Matskevich and his attractive daughter, Larisa, our host and
hostess, helped make the evening especially memorable.

The next morning found us touring the state farm, "Gorki II," in the
Moscow region, and later that morning, visiting Stud Farm I, where
the Soviets displayed their finest horses.

After lunch we were taken to the Kremlin and Red Square. The
colorful spires of famous St. Basil's Cathedral, built by Ivan the Terrible
in the sixteenth century, stood out against the horizon. Like most of the
other Russian churches it was closed. In contrast, a long line of Russians
stood in the shadow of the massive Kremlin wall waiting to enter the
tomb of Lenin and Stalin. Arrangements had been made with the Rus-
sian soldiers guarding the entrance for us to enter without waiting. We
viewed the bodies of Lenin and Stalin lying in glass-enclosed caskets,
bathed in an eerie orange light that gave them a strange lifelike appear-
ance. Obviously, the Soviets were attempting to deify these two leaders
in an effort to give meaning to the otherwise empty precepts of godless
communism.

Then our guides took us to the palaces of the Czais inside the Kremlin
walls. That these rulers had lived in conspicuous and lavish luxury, like
the Communist overlords, was indicated by the displays in glass cases
of their jewels, gold, silver, satins, and paintings. We saw the ornate
carriages, including a huge carriage on sled runners, in which they
traveled hundreds of miles across the snow-covered Russian plains.

Poor as the people were under the Czars they were making better
progress than they have under communism despite the billions of
American dollars we've given Communist Russia to keep alive this
murderous tyranny.

A quick visit to the GUM Department Store, which seemed to be a
collection of outdoor shops, except they were all under one roof, gave
us further insight. The merchandise in general was unattractive, or in
the case of such specialty items as lacquered boxes, much too expensive.
After a subway ride and a good look at the elaborate marble stations
and long escalators, we were met by our drivers and unexpectedly saw
a group of several hundred Russian soldiers practicing close order drill.
Then at last we got out into the Ukraine where Russian farming is
at its best. Here is the breadbasket of the U.S.S.R. and here the com-
petition between U.S. and U.S.S.R. agriculture is really centered.

We saw hundreds of posters urging farmers to surpass the United
States in per capita production, and forecasting the ultimate victory of
the Communist system. I told both Russian leaders and people that we
welcomed peaceful, honest competition, and that we wanted to see them

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 481

raise their standards of living, because this coupled with freedom is the
road to increased world trade and less world tension and a growth of
mutual understanding and friendship.

I had been holding news conferences whenever possible and contin-
ued to do so in the Ukraine. At the first conference, the president of the
Russian Press Association, in introducing me, presented some inaccurate
figures on corn and cereal grain yields in Russia and other countries. I
realized that unless these figures were corrected promptly I would be
plagued with them throughout my tour.

Fortunately, we had prepared cards showing comparative yields per
acre by countries according to UN figures. In response I said that we
were happy to know that Russian agriculture was improving, and that
we hoped they would make improvement also in the production of
other consumer goods. Then I presented the figures, gave a copy to the
chairman and to Mr. Matskevich. During the remainder of the tour,
nothing further was said about comparative yields.

The Russian leaders are very conscious of their limitations and they
try to compensate by putting up a big front. On the surface, for example,
their agricultural expositions look impressive, buildings, machinery,
and all. But when a member of our party during the tour asked to be
shown to the rest rooms, we f ound to our amazement that there was not
a rest room in the place fit for a savage.

At the exposition, we saw a massive three-row sugar beet topper.
When I asked if it would work, the head of the agricultural engineering
section responded; certainly it would. So I told Matskevich I'd like to see
one in operation when we got into the sugar beet country near Kiev.

In Kiev we made several trips into the country. Each time I asked
to see a sugar beet harvester operating, I was put off. On our final trip
I protested. "Now this is our last trip into the country and I want to see
that sugar beet harvester." Matskevich said, "We will see it on our way
back. 55 As we returned, he pointed to a large machine some eighty rods
out in the field and said, "See, it's operating," and he didn't even slow
down the car. I insisted that he stop and that we go out into the field.
We did so and he started guiding us along the headland until I in-
sisted that we walk out to where the machine was working.

Then the reason for his reluctance immediately became obvious. The
machine was operating on three rows of beets, but the results were
calamitous. It was dropping the beets in piles, and women with butcher
knives were following behind picking up each beet; about one-third of
the beets were not topped at all, another third were poorly topped and

482 CROSS FIRE

the rest were pretty well topped. It was almost as embarrassing for me
as for Matskevich.

In charge of the sugar beet operation was a robust, chubby woman
with a continuing smile and apple-red cheeks. She scurried around
supervising. Later we saw her picture in the halls of the Ukrainian Ex-
hibition of Economic Achievement. She had been decorated with the
Order of Lenin and was known as "The Sugar Beet Hero." This rec-
ognition was her incentive and reward.

I saw other machines at the Russian Exhibit in Moscow which I could
not find in operation in the fields or farmyards anywhere I went in
Russia. Women do most of the heavy farm work in the Soviet Union.
Many have children who are being raised in nursery schools while their
mothers labor year after year at their assigned tasks in the field.

Compared with typical American country life, Soviet rural standards
are almost primitive. They have about 1 ,000,000 tractors, of inferior
quality — owned by the state. We have about 5,000,000 — owned by
individuals. And in addition we have more than 1,000,000 grain com-
bines, nearly 750,000 mechanical cornpickers, and some 600,000 pick-up
balers.

Few Soviet farms have electricity — compared with 97 per cent of
ours — and with electricity in the United States have come running
water, radios, televisions, refrigerators, deep freezers, vacuum cleaners,
and a whole multitude of conveniences that make the typical farm home
as modern as those in the cities. Many families on Soviet farms live in
wooden cabins, even mud huts. They get to town about as often as
farmers in this country used to sixty or seventy-five years ago.

Our farm families drive modern cars on hard-surface highways. The
Soviet farm family rides in horse-drawn carts over roads to match.

We have more telephones on farms in this country than can be found
in all of Russia, city and farm combined.

But most important of all, the Russian people do not own the farms
they work. In contrast, our farms are not only individually owned, the
great majority of them are owner-operated and most are free of mort-
gage.

So while it is true that the Soviet Union has made, and is making,
better progress toward a more efficient agriculture, the Soviets are not
really closing the gap. Late figures from Russian sources indicate that
some 48,000,000 persons are working in agriculture and forestry —
about 40 per cent of their total labor force. Some 7,000,000 persons
are engaged in agriculture in the U.S., or only about one-tenth of our

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 483

labor force, and 90 per cent of our workers have been freed by our
agricultural efficiency to produce the industrial goods and services which
make ours the highest standard of living the world has ever seen. Yet
there is a wide gap between our total agricultural production and theirs
— a still wider gap between their marketing and ours — and a tremen-
dous chasm between their farm standard of living and ours.

But though the Soviet Union is still a long way behind us in agri-
cultural efficiency and productivity generally, the potential for growth
is very apparent. The Soviets by 1959 had increased their agricultural
production, from a low base, by about one-half since 1953. By the late
1960s they estimate they will probably be competing strongly in world
markets with some U.S. agricultural products, especially wheat.

We should not fear this; we should concentrate on meeting the com-
petition fairly but vigorously. Having seen agriculture under contrasting
forms of government in three Communist countries, I am all the more
convinced of the superiority of our system of privately owned family
farms, the profit motive, competitive markets, and freedom for the
farmer to decide what he wants to grow and market.

In terms of productivity per man-hour of work, no other nation any-
where in the world even comes close to the record set by our agriculture
and that of Canada. One U.S. agricultural worker on the average pro-
vides for more than twenty-five persons. In Russia the corresponding
figure is five to six.

This reflects in part the rapid spread of mechanization. Between 1940
and i960 the number of tractors and other motor vehicles on U.S.
farms more than doubled. Inventories of other farm machinery and
equipment tripled. We have almost completely mechanized the cultivat-
ing and harvesting of grains and soybeans. In some areas farmers seed
and fertilize and apply pesticides to the rice crop by airplane. Most of our
dairy farms are equipped with milking machines and pick-up balers and
many have hay driers, field choppers, automatic feeders, modern build-
ings for dairy cattle, milking parlors, pipeline milkers, and bulk milk
tanks. These technological advances made Khrushchev's eyes pop when
he saw them in 1959.

For one basic reason the Soviets will not equal or surpass our pro-
ductivity in our lifetime, if ever, under their collectivist system of agri-
culture — because under that system they cannot equal the over-all effi-
ciency and productive ingenuity called forth in a free society. For a short
time, under forced draft, they may seem to march ahead with seven-
league boots; but in the long run freedom and competition and the

484 CROSS FIRE

enjoyment of the fruits of one's labor provide the best weather for
achievement.

The Soviets seem to do a good deal of experimenting in medicines.
While in the Ukraine Beverly became quite ill with Asiatic flu. Our
hosts arranged for quick medical treatment. Beverly later told about
one rather unique aspect of the treatment.

"They used fifteen small glasses, putting a flame inside each a mo-
ment to remove all air and then immediately putting them on my back.
They maintained contact by atmospheric pressure. The purpose was to
draw the blood to the skin's surface and reduce fever. When removed,
the glasses left little round marks that looked like fried sausages all over
my back."

I cite this to illustrate that the Russians do have some unique medical
practices, and by and large they have made progress in some areas of
medicine that has opened the eyes of the Western world. Russian uni-
versities, I understand, are graduating at the present time about twice as
many doctors as U.S. universities. A very large proportion of these new
graduates are women.

This was the kind of thing that impressed me most about the Soviet
Union: the immense strides being made in a few fields of major em-
phasis and the terrible contrast in many other areas of the total economy.
The emphasis, of course, is decided by the government, not by the in-
dividual. This, I believe, is a fatal flaw in the Communist way of doing
things. By contrast with a society truly motivated by Judaic-Christian
ideals, the Communist system would inevitably prove to be weak, inef-
fective, and forced to depend more and more on coercion. The question
we have to ask ourselves, however, is whether our society is still suffi-
ciently motivated by these ideals. Or have we succumbed to the intense
desire for success, for human respect, for ease and convenience?

Surely as a nation our natural advantages are vast; the Russians, for
example, will probably never be able to duplicate our corn production.
They have neither the soil nor the climate. On the other hand, they do
have a discipline, an enforced dedication, which may enable them to
make more out of fewer advantages than we may make out of great
advantages if we succumb to the lure of easy living.

The vast number of Russian people, I believe, are fine. It is the Com-
munist system and its leaders that are evil. If the leaders of nations, in-
cluding the Soviet Union, respond to the will of the people, the world
would have peace. The many sentiments of peace, friendship, brother-
hood, and good will we encountered in all the countries we visited in all

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 485

our trade trips testified most eloquently to how much the people of the
world want to live in peace. Our hosts in Russia presented us with an
embarrassment of gifts including perfumes, hats, Russian dolls, books,
pictures, and a gold tea set,

A Church in Russia

The most remarkable incident of the entire trip occurred our last eve-
ning in Moscow.

By way of background, it should be noted that for over forty years it
has been the policy of the Soviet Government to discourage religion.
Stalin said, "Lenin is God . . . The party cannot be neutral toward
religion."

And Lenin had stated: "Religion is a kind of spiritual gin in which
the slaves of capital drown their human shape and their claims to any
decent human life • . . Marxism is materialism . , • We deny all moral-
ity taken from superhuman or nonclass conceptions . . . Atheism is an
integral part of Marxism . . . The materialist gives a more important
place to materialism and nature, while relegating God and all the philo-
sophical rabble who believe in Him to the sewer and manure heap . . .
Down with religion. Long live Atheism."

Atheism is a required subject for all students in Russian public schools.
Citizens of the Soviet Union who look forward to a career of any kind,
whether in the professions or in industry and most certainly in public
a dminis tration, know well that they must avoid the slightest suspicion
of belief in Christianity or any other God-centered religion.

While a few churches are permitted to hold services in Moscow, it is
merely to create a pretense of freedom. Of the 28 churches in Moscow
now holding services (the population of the city is 5,500,000) 23 are
Russian Orthodox, two Baptist, two are synagogues, and one is Moslem.
Of the 26 Protestant churches formerly existing, all except two are now
closed.

The Communists say those who go to church do so out of curiosity,
not devotion or belief. The young people don't go, we were told, only

the old. 9

On the way to the airport this last night in Moscow, I mentioned
again to one of our guides my disappointment that we had had no op-
portunity to visit a church in Russia. He said a few words to the chauf-
feur, the car swung around in the middle of the avenue and we
eventually pulled up before an old stucco building on a dark, narrow,

486 CROSS FIRE

cobblestone side street not far from Red Square. This was the Central
Baptist Church.

It was a rainy, disagreeable October night with a distinct chill in the
air. But when we entered the church, we found it filled; people were
standing in the hall, in the entry, even in the street. Every Sunday,
Tuesday, and Thursday, we learned, similar crowds turn out.

I looked at the faces of the people. Many were middle-aged and older
but a surprising number were young. About four out of every five were
women, most of them with scarves about their heads. We were ushered
into a place beside the pulpit.

A newsman who was present described what happened: "Every face
in the old sanctuary gaped incredulously as our obviously American
group was led down the aisle. They grabbed for our hands as we pro-
ceeded to our pews which were gladly vacated for our unexpected visit.
Their wrinkled old faces looked at us pleadingly. They reached out to
touch us almost as one would reach out for the last final caress of one's
most-beloved just before the casket is lowered. They were in misery and
yet a light shone through the misery. They gripped our hands like
frightened children."

The minister spoke a few words, and then the organ struck a chord
or two and began a hymn in which the entire congregation joined as
one. Hearing a thousand to 1500 voices raised there became one of the
most affecting experiences of my entire life. In our common faith as
Christians, they reached out to us with a message of welcome that
bridged all differences of language, of government, of history. And as I
was trying to recover balance under this emotional impact, the minister
asked me, through an interpreter who stood there, to address the con-
gregation.

It took me a moment of hard struggle to master my feelings sufficiently
to agree. Then I said, in part, "It was very kind of you to ask me to
greet you.

"I bring you greetings from the millions and millions of church people
in America and around the world." And suddenly it was the most
natural thing in the world to be talking to these fellow Christians about
the most sacred truths known to man.

"Our Heavenly Father is not far away. He can be very close to us.
God lives, I know that He lives. He is our Father. Jesus Christ, the
Redeemer of the World, watches over this earth. He will direct all
things. Be unafraid, keep His commandments, love one another, pray
for peace and all will be well."

As each sentence was translated for the congregation, I saw the

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 487

women take their handkerchiefs and as one observer put it begin to
"wave them like a mother bidding permanent goodby to her only son.' 9
Their heads nodded vigorously as they moaned ja, ja ? ja! (yes, yes, yes!) .
Then I noticed for the first time that even the gallery was filled and
many persons were standing against the walls. I looked down on one
old woman before me, head covered by a plain old scarf, a shawl about
her shoulders, her aged, wrinkled face serene with faith. I spoke directly
to her.

"This life is only a part of eternity. We lived before we came here as
spiritual children of God. We will live again after we leave this life.
Christ broke the bonds of death and was resurrected. We will all be res-
urrected."

"I believe very firmly in prayer. I know it is possible to reach out
and tap that Unseen Power which gives us strength and such an anchor
in time of need." With each sentence I uttered, the old head nodded
assent. And old, feeble, wrinkled as she was, that woman was beautiful in
her devotion.

I don't remember all that I said, but I recall feeling lifted up, in-
spired by the rapt faces of these men and women who were so stead-
fastly proving their faith in the God they served and loved.

In closing I said, "I leave you my witness as a Church servant for
many years that the truth will endure. Time is on the side of truth. God
bless you and keep you all the days of your life, I pray in the name of
Jesus Christ, Amen."

With that I brought this broken little talk to an end, because I could
say no more, and sat down. The whole congregation then broke into a
favorite hymn of my childhood, "God Be with You Till We Meet
Again." We left the church as they sang and as we walked down the
aisle, they waved handkerchiefs in farewell — it seemed all 1500 were
waving at us as we left.

It has been my privilege to speak before many church bodies in all
parts of the world, but the impact of that experience is almost inde-
scribable. I shall never forget that evening as long as I live.

Seldom, if ever, have I felt the oneness of mankind and the un-
quenchable yearning of the human heart for freedom so keenly as at
that moment.

Ten members of the American press who were present felt it, too.
Without exception they told me later what a moving experience it had
been. One of them wrote in the next issue of his magazine: "The Com-
munist plan is that when these 'last believers' die off, religion will die
with them. What the atheists don't know is that God can't be stamped

488 GROSS FIRE

out either by legislated atheism or firing squad. This Methodist back-
slider who occasionally grumbles about having to go to church, stood
crying unashamedly, throat lumped, and chills running from spine to
toes. It was the most heart-rending and most inspiring scene I've ever
witnessed.' 5

On the drive to the airport one of the interpreters, a young Russian
girl who had never known any life save that under communism, said,
"I felt like crying."

So did I.

I came home to this our own blessed land grateful for its favors,
humble in the face of the responsibilities that confront us as free people
— but filled with hope for the future, too.

I came back resolved to tell this story often — because it shows how
the spirit of freedom, the spirit of brotherhood, and the spirit of religion
live on and on despite all efforts to destroy them.

The members of the American press reported this visit to a Russian
church with narrative, pictures, and editorials. One of the latter, by
Tom Anderson, publisher of Farm and Ranch magazine, is reprinted in
Appendix E.

Never shall I forget this victory of the spirit over tyranny, oppression,
and ignorance. Never can I doubt the ultimate deliverance of the Rus-
sian people.

63

"Black Sunday to White Wednesday

After the high spiritual note of the church service, it was rather dis-
couraging to come home to a low political note. Prices were sliding and
skidding again as the heavy fall crops came to market. Soon the refrain
"Benson must go" was again heard in the land*

Some sneered at the trade trips as though they were government-
financed vacations. Those who made the trips knew different All of us
usually came back exhausted. We worked not only in the countries but
in transit as well. While flying, we would go over remarks to be made on
landing, review our briefing notes, and write up our notes on the coun-
try we had just left. It was pleasant at times but it was also work, work,
and more work. As for the results, here is part of what Ovid Martin,
who for over twenty years has covered the USDA for the Associated
Press, wrote at the conclusion of this particular trip.

BENSON CREATES EUROPEAN GOOD WILL

Should the United States have a roving ambassador of good will to the
peoples of the world?

This question stands out in the minds of many of those — officials and
newsmen — who accompanied Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson
on his recent tour of eastern and northern Europe.

This country maintains, of course, ambassadors and ministers to various
governments. But these representatives usually have little time or opportu-
nity to get beyond official and diplomatic circles.

The Benson tour was unique in a number of ways. The Secretary spent
a lot of time and effort getting out into the country to meet the farm
people. Leaders there said no American official of such rank had ever
done this before.

490 CROSS FIRE

It was obvious that these farm visits made a deep and favorable impres-
sion among the peasant farmers in Yugoslavia and Poland. It is in these
countries that Communist regimes have had to back up on programs to
socialize agriculture because of the strong resistance of the peasants.

Doubtless, the picture of a high American official stopping at a small
farm, walking out through a muddy barnyard to introduce himself to the
peasant farmer and discussing his crops and livestock with him, has spread
far and wide through rural areas of both countries. Having been a farmer
himself, Secretary Benson impressed his host with the farmer-to-farmer
questions he asked and the suggestions he offered.

Mrs. Benson, who went with her husband on the trip, accompanied him
on these rural treks. While he was talking with the farmer, Mrs. Benson
was getting acquainted with the wife and children.

To say that they appeared overwhelmed is not to exaggerate. Local
leaders explained that the Secretary's visit made such a deep impression
because the peasants seldom if ever saw any of their own national officials.
. Impressed by these farm trips were U.S. diplomatic representatives as-
signed to these countries. A number of them accompanied the Bensons.
They came back saying their own missions would be helped immeasurably.
The comment was heard that personal visits of this nature did much more
good than some of the financial aid the United States extends to some of
the countries.

This reporting on the Benson trip may seem like old stuff to Americans,
accustomed as they are to periodical visits by office-seeking politicians.

But to the peoples of Eastern Europe it was something new.

Whatever the criticism, for once, I didn't much care. I was too sick
to be bothered.

A few days before we had left for Europe, I got off the plane in Salt
Lake City where I had flown from Washington to make a speech. I was
hit by a severe pain midway in my abdomen. It steadily increased as I
went to the meeting and became so intense on the platform while waiting
to be introduced that I feared I would be unable to go on. While speak-
ing, the pain left; but it returned again, growing intense as I reached
my hotel. Going immediately to my room, I stretched out on the bed and
called our family physician. He arrived shortly. While he was with me
I had two further attacks, the most severe of all. A heart specialist was
called to meet us at the hospital and an ambulance to take me there.
A cardiogram showed my heart to be undamaged. Following further
consultation the doctors decided to give me a sedative and start extensive
tests next morning. But when the tests led to the conclusion that the
pain was caused by either gall stones or a muscular spasm due to tension
and fatigue, they discharged me from the hospital and at 10:50 that
morning I was on the plane for Buffalo, New York.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 491

I was glad to be released, because this was the day before we were
scheduled to set out on our long-planned trip.

While in Europe and for a couple of weeks after our return, attacks
occurred intermittently until one morning in late October the most ex-
cruciating pain I can ever remember struck.

The next week I spent at Walter Reed Army Hospital undergoing
treatment for an infection of the gall bladder.

The President sent a note to help keep my spirits up.

The White House
October 26, 1959
Dear Ezra:

I am sorry to learn of your difficulties, and I do hope the doctors at Wal-
ter Reed will soon be able to discover the cause — and eradicate it promptly.
Meanwhile, these flowers bring you my best wishes and warm regard.

As ever,
D.E.

The doctors discussed surgery but decided to wait a while to see what
might happen, especially since they had discovered an infection and
wanted to clear it up before operating.

Coming out of the hospital, I found the "Benson must go" chorus
gaining in volume. Early in November, the President and I reviewed the
legislative picture, the wheat situation, a Presidential nation-wide TV
talk on agriculture and plans for the coming session of Congress.

The President asked me to contact the top legislators preliminary to
a meeting with these men in his office at about the time the Congress
reconvened. Following the conference I met newsmen in Jim Hagerty's
office and made public the following memorandum, approved by the
President, on what we considered should be done to establish a satis-
factory agricultural program:

ESSENTIAL ASPECTS OF A SOUND FARM PROGRAM

1. An expanded program for the voluntary retirement of land from crop

production for the next five to ten years under the Conservation Re-
serve, with particular reference to areas of notable surplus.

2. An aggressive program of research aimed at developing new markets

and new uses for farm products.

3. A vigorous "Food for Peace Program." This will utilize even more of

our surpluses to supplement the food supplies available to our friends
abroad.

4. An expanded Rural Development Program to assist farmers in the low

income areas (more than half of our total farmers) attain a higher
standard of living.

4g 2 GROSS FIRE

5. Realistic price support programs on storable commodities related to
market prices in recent years, not to an obsolete parity formula based
on conditions a half century ago.

The President's backing contrasted sharply with a suddenly announced
attitude of another member of the Administration. Nelson Rockefeller
speaking in Washington and Idaho, and Vice President Nixon speaking
in Wisconsin and Indiana, were now commenting on agriculture. Rocke-
feller, as was understandable, indicated that he had not finally formed
his views. The Vice President's remarks, on the other hand, mystified
and extremely disappointed me. The agricultural problem, he said, re-
quired the highest priority if we were to find a better solution; a state-
ment I could readily accept since the solution which we had proposed
had been adopted only in part. But then he went on, "The farm pro-
gram needs a new approach — by both parties."

That the Vice President should have made this bald statement seemed
almost inconceivable. It implied that the farm policy of the Eisenhower
Administration was not sound. It slapped at the Republican platform of
1956, the President's farm messages of 1958 and 1959, and the joint
announcement on "essentials" which the President and I had just made
from the White House. Besides, it contradicted some of Mr. Nixon's
earlier statements on the subject.

Either the Vice President did not really understand the farm issue
(which I could hardly believe in view of the discussions we had had in
Cabinet and in private) or he was striving for some politically expedient
approach to it.

A few days later, at my request, we had a conference in his office.
We discussed the whole agricultural situation, the Administration's
farm policy, and I emphasized the importance of our fighting it out on
this line. He asked many questions and I left several documents with
him. It was a very congenial and, I believed, profitable conference,
with, however, no definite commitments.

Meantime, another headache had developed— the "cranberry inci-
dent." Just before the Thanksgiving holiday, the Food and Drug Ad-
ministration condemned certain shipments of cranberries, ruining cran-
berry sales for that season. The FDA, by being more circumspect in its
publicity, might have accomplished the withdrawal of shipments of
questionable wholesomeness from the market without creating an un-
justified national cranberry scare.

In fact, we knew it could have been handled that way, because of
our own experience.

THE- EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 493

One day in 1957, our Agricultural Marketing Service received a
report that inspectors had discovered ground glass in a shipment of
peanut butter scheduled for use in the School Lunch Program. Two con-
cerns were uppermost in our minds, first, the well-being of the children;
second, preventing circulation of a wild rumor to the injury of the
School Lunch Program and Departmental activities generally. We
stopped deliveries and discontinued processing at the plant in ques-
tion. With the technical assistance of the Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare, all shipments under suspicion were destroyed.

We finally traced the cause of the difficulty to a mill where, through
some misadvertence, this accident had occurred.

After a week of investigation and clean up, processing was again un-
dertaken, shipments continued, and the School Lunch Program pro-
ceeded as before.

It was an error quickly and properly rectified without adverse con-
sequences to health or public opinion.

In the cranberry case, however, the damage had been done.

Following inter-department conversations and several Cabinet ses-
sions running into i960, the FDA and USDA worked out a more satis-
factory procedure for safeguarding food supplies than the shoot-first-
and-explain-af terward technique of the cranberry incident.

After further attacks and additional treatment during November, the
doctors became convinced that surgery was required and early in De-
cember they went to work on me. Once again the President showed his
concern. Before departing on a trip to Europe and Asia, he sent a note.

And from Italy came this word later:

Rome

December 6, 1959
Dear Ezra:

I was greatly relieved this morning to find a message to the effect that
your operation is considered by Leonard Heaton and others a complete suc-
cess and that no complications are expected. I am also reassured by their
prognosis that after you regain your strength you will feel as well, if
not better, than before. Needless to say, I have been thinking of you —
and this note brings you my best wishes for a speedy recovery.

The trip so far has been pleasant — and damp. I hope for better weather
tomorrow when we reach Ankara . . .

A few days after this, in the hospital, I listened over the radio to a
round-up report on the President's visit to Pakistan, Afghanistan, and
India. Hearing his voice and the cheers of the people, I am not ashamed

494 GROSS FIRE

to say that tears filled my eyes, and I listened avidly to the universal
praise of the man we called "Ike" by radio commentators from several
parts of the world.

It was while recuperating at Walter Reed that I read in the papers on
Saturday evening, December 12, a story to the effect that members of
the Republican National Committee attending a meeting in Chicago
had raised the old question about my resignation. The Chairman of the
Committee, Senator Thruston B. Morton, apparently had agreed to talk
with me about it.

I must admit that the raising of this tired, old issue again at this
time really was provoking. Next morning I telephoned Senator Mor-
ton. Inasmuch as the papers were carrying the story, I told him it was
my judgment that we ought to consult promptly. "I will be glad to see
you any time tomorrow," I said, "and preferably tomorrow morning."
Thruston said he would like to come out and would be in touch with
me the next morning.

When he arrived at Walter Reed, I was in bed. I asked him to pull
his chair up close so we could talk. How many members of the Commit-
tee had joined in the request that I resign? He said, "Three."

"Three out of one hundred and fifty-five?"

"Yes," he said.

"Tell me who they were; HI go out and meet with them together or
singly or have them come to Washington, if they prefer."

Senator Morton replied, "They swore me to secrecy. I can't reveal
their names."

I looked at him for a moment. What kind of opposition was this?

"You know, Senator," I said, "that some people favor a socialized
agriculture with more government in farming have been determined
from the time I made my first speech in early '53 to get me out of office.
Failing in this they determined to create an image of the Secretary of
Agriculture as an enemy of farmers. They have released, six days a
week, for years, a line of misrepresentations and vilification directed at
me in particular and to a lesser extent at the President and the Adminis-
tration.

"The Administration's program is sound. It has been approved by the
National Agricultural Advisory Commission. The Farm Bureau has in
large measure supported us. Every study made by any competent group
has in large measure been a confirmation of our policies. It is unthink-
able that we should reverse ourselves at this time and surrender. To do
so would leave people with no choice whatever."

When Morton left, the papers picked up my counterblast. Resign?

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 495

I said. I was resigned to one thing— to continue working for a prosper-
ous, expanding, free agriculture, "Some ambitious political hopefuls,"
my statement went on, "attempt to conceal their own failure to suggest
anything constructive by reckless statements which are an insult to the
intelligence of farmers and a real disservice to agriculture.

"The question is not is it good politics, but is it right? Our program
is right." Then I sounded a familiar note— f amiliar to the President and
myself, perhaps, but not to everyone in our party. "If anything is right,
it ought to be done— and it will prove to be good pohtics."

Having got this off my chest, I felt well enough to go home.

And at home I stayed until December 31, resting, recuperating, read-
ing materials from the office and keeping in touch with the office by
telephone. Time magazine summed it up in its issue of December 28.

"We went from Black Sunday to White Wednesday, 55 crowed an Agri-
culture Department official in Washington last week. , , .

On Benson 5 s Black Sunday he was in Washington's Walter Reed Army
Hospital, convalescing from a gall bladder operation and brooding about
the campaign by high-level Republicans to dump him as a political lia-
bility.

[Then], the voters in Iowa 5 s Fourth District elected a Republican to fill
the unexpired term of a Democratic Congressman who had died in office
and the outcome seemed to show that simply denouncing Benson is not
quite so surefire a method of winning farm belt elections as Democrats had
hoped — and Republicans had feared.

White Wednesday was a good day for Ezra Taft Benson. . . . Home
from the hospital, he pored happily over the news from Iowa. Out in
Chicago at its yearly convention, the staunchly Republican, 1,400,000-
member American Farm Bureau Federation unanimously adopted a pro-
Benson wheat plan. . . « In Washington, Chairman Morton, . . . urged
fellow Republicans to "sell" Benson in the farm belt, not sell him out.
When Benson heard that news, an austere but unmistakable smile of
victory spread across his face.

This was the year in which a young man, forty-
three, a Roman Catholic, became the youngest
person and the first of his faith to be elected Presi-
dent of the United States, It was one of the closest
elections in U.S. history.

Agitation between Castro-dominated Cuba and
the United States grew rapidly as the Communist
influence in Cuba mounted, Khrushchev rattled
his rockets in a threat against any U.S. interven-
tion. Khrushchev also torpedoed the summit con-
ference in Paris, and insulted Eisenhower, after a
U-2 intelligence plane went down over Russia.
First Lieutenant Francis Gary Powers, pilot of the
U-2, was convicted of espionage by a Soviet court.

The rising nationalism in Africa was high-
lighted by bitter fighting in the Congo. With the
admission of ij nations to the United Nations, the
membership of that world body reached gg.

A Polaris ballistic missile was fired successfully
from a submerged submarine, giving the U.S. a
mobile, undetectable firing base for its missiles.

It was the year of the Administration's last
chance to perfect and complete its various pro-
grams. But one prominent member of the Adminis-
tration went the other way.

1960

40

The Last Message

A letter in a magazine, clipped by one of my staff, amused us all greatly.
Purportedly it had been sent to me, but I don't recall ever receiving it.
No matter, it was a clever satire.

Dear Mr. Secretary:

My friend Bordeaux, over in Terrebonne Parish, received a $1,000
check from the government this year for not raising hogs. So I am going
into the non-hog raising business. What I want to know, in your opinion,
what is the best kind of hogs not to raise?

I would prefer not to raise razor-backs, but if that is not a good breed
not to raise, I will just as gladly not raise Berkshires or Durocs. The hardest
work in this business is going to be in keeping an inventory of how many
hogs I haven't raised.

My friend Bordeaux has been raising hogs for 20 years, and the best
he ever made was $400 until this year, when he got $1,000 for not raising
hogs. If I can get $1,000 for not raising 50 hogs, then I will get $2,000 for
not raising 100 hogs,

I plan to operate on a small scale at first holding myself down to
about 4,000 hogs, which means I will have $80,000. Now, another thing:
These hogs I will not raise will not eat 100,000 bushels of corn. I under-
stand that you also pay farmers for not raising corn. So will you pay me
anything for not raising 100,000 bushels of corn not to feed to the hogs I
am not raising?

I want to get started as soon as possible, as this seems a good time of

the year for not raising hogs.

Yours truly,
John Deaux

Though the letter burlesqued and misrepresented the purposes of the
Soil Bank, I couldn't deny that it put its finger on glaring inconsistencies
in farm policy.

500 CROSS FIRE

Facing now our last chance to complete our farm program and con-
sidering all the circumstances, I could hardly be hopeful; yet if we failed,
I had to make sure the fault could not justly be laid at our door.

The day before the Congress convened, I had lunch with Senator
Everett Dirksen in the Senate Dining Room. I told him I was planning
a breakfast meeting with the six Republican members of the Senate
Agriculture Committee. He said, "Fine, go to it." Three days later,
Marvin McLain, Miles Horst, and I met the six Republicans in the new
Senate Office Building. It was a no-holds-barred discussion of the farm
problem, the legislation needed and its political implications. Two of
the group, Karl E. Mundt of South Dakota and Andrew F. Schoeppel
of Kansas, were up for election in i960. As earnestly as I knew how, I
pled with the group to take a strong stand in support of the Eisenhower
policy for the solution of the wheat problem, a solution based upon three
pegs.

(1) Doing away with acreage allotments and marketing quotas on
wheat

(2 ) An expanded conservation reserve in the wheat areas

(3) Price supports related not to 19 10-14, but to recent market
prices.

As had been the case so often before, I got little encouragement. An
election year seemed to make some of our political leaders view the
mountainous wheat surplus as though it were an anthill and the average
constituent as though he were an ogre. All that I had seen in the wheat
country led me to believe that if Mundt and Schoeppel would speak out
in support of a program on the economic facts, they would win wide
support. They couldn't see it.

Leaving the Senators, we walked past the Library of Congress to the
House Office Building about three blocks away. Here we met with ten
of the eleven Republicans on the House Ag Committee. Another frank
discussion — again not much to cheer about. In fact, the only real en-
couragement I got that day was from the He-Coons; I met them for
dinner that night.

In my heart, I suppose, I knew that almost no chance remained that
this session of the Congress would give us the farm legislation we sought,
thus in a sense completing the Administration's program. Still it was
almost inconceivable that the legislatives would permit the already des-
perate wheat situation to continue to grow worse.

Flora and I went to the Capitol on Thursday, January 7, to hear the
President deliver his State of the Union Message. As you can imagine,
the realization that this would be my eighth and last trip to the Hill for

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 5OI

this purpose brought rather poignant feelings. How had we employed
these seven years? The President, I knew, had given the nation good
leadership. But he himself felt his program had not been fully fashioned
— and I surely felt the same about agriculture. What could we have
done other than what we had done? What would history say of these
years?

The message was outstanding; in my opinion, the best of all Eisen-
hower had delivered. "We must fight inflation," he said in one memo-
rable passage, "as we would a fire that imperils our homes" — an apt
simile, I thought. Eisenhower predicted a slight surplus in the budget for
i960 and a surplus of over $4,000,000,000 for fiscal 1961 — a good hedge
against inflation.

Because this was the beginning of an intensely political year, however,
the response from the Democratic side of the aisle seemed almost child-
ishly partisan. It was a shame. As Disraeli said, "Life is too short to be
little."

On January 14, our executive session of the Cabinet, beginning at
2:30 in the afternoon, was devoted largely to budget and defense prob-
lems. As we discussed these pressing questions, this thought kept recur-
ring: "How can free government best endure in this competition with
the atheistic communistic system?"

Under communism with the state exercising complete control, the
emphasis is on enforced materialistic progress. Surprisingly enough, this
is sufficient to call forth from a few people what appears to be a high
degree of dedication and morale. A free society can meet this challenge
only by keeping its economy healthy and providing sufficient incentive
for progress and saving. We depend on the raw carrot, the profit motive;
the Communists on the whip.

Our great problem is how to make a free economic system work to
its full effect in a free government. One thing seemed all too clear to me.
We could not do it by trying to provide through government action too
many services to too many people too fast at the price of living beyond
our means.

Meantime, in cooperation with the White House, the Department was
drawing up plans for one last special Presidential message on agriculture,
and I was urging that it contain a vigorous, last-gasp assault on the
wheat problem.

This problem had some of the legislators searching around for solu-
tions, too.

In their efforts to find an approach that might stand a fair chance of

502 CROSS FIRE

acceptance both by the Congress and the White House, various Senators
and Representatives were dusting off old proposals while others were
coming up with some rather novel ideas. Senator Frank Carlson, in a
speech to the National Wheat Growers Association, advocated an annual
get together by the USDA, the Congress, and various farm groups, with
the purpose of preventing divergencies of views from widening from
year to year as they had recently been doing.

Senator Hubert Humphrey proposed a plan under which the Secre-
tary of Agriculture would work out farm programs on a commodity-by-
commodity basis with committees of farmers. These plans would then
be voted on by the growers in a referendum and, if approved, be submit-
ted to the Congress. The Congress could accept or veto the plan but
could not amend it.

How any realistic person could conceive of the Congress' giving up its
ultimate authority over farm legislation completely baffled me.

Several wheat state Congressmen still pushed for a two-price plan on
wheat, which would support at a high level that portion of the wheat
crop used domestically, with the remainder being sold into the world
market for whatever it would bring. Several liberal Democrats seemed
still hopeful of passing an omnibus bill to reverse the Administration's
achievements of the past six years.

Senator Allen J. Ellender talked bravely of holding two days of hear-
ings on his own wheat proposal and then driving it through Congress.
The Ellender bill provided for a 20 per cent cut in wheat acreage allot-
ments with price support at 80 per cent in 1961, followed by a further
cut in allotments and lower price support in succeeding years. He pro-
fessed to believe he could get this accepted by the Congress and signed
by the President, on the understanding that there would be no other
major farm legislation attempted during i960.

Ellender, being in a position at least to put his plan in motion, called
his hearings early in February. About half the time Ellender himself was
the only Democrat there. The Republican members of the Committee
showed up for considerably more of the hearings than did the Demo-
crats. The Farm Bureau, the Grange, the Wheat Growers Association,
and the National Farmers Union testified. As our views were already
well known, we sent no one from the USDA.

The hearings were a flop. The problems of drafting a satisfactory
Presidential message in this very political year, with Eisenhower a lame
duck and Nixon eying the residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, had
now become monumental. We in the USDA had drawn up a strong
section on wheat. Those on the President's staff who had followed farm

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 503

legislation most closely, such as Don Paarlberg, Clyde Wheeler, and
Bryce Harlow, supported us. Milt Young, Mundt, and others, however,
kept up a drum fire of pressure on the White House and the Republican
National Committee, to dilute the message until it would be practically
meaningless. Though the President's recommendations had been in-
tended for delivery in January, we agreed in the interests of better un-
derstanding to consult further.

Whatever progress was being made ground to a halt in late January
and early February. The Vice President was one of the stumbling blocks.
As the second ranking leader of the party and its probable candidate for
the Presidency, his voice naturally became increasingly weighty. Again
he seemed to be more interested in devising a scheme to capture the
imagination of the voters, especially in the Midwest, than in supporting
the Administration's sound proposals.

To complicate matters, a payment-in-kind program for corn was now
being pressed by four Iowa Republicans, Congressmen Charlie Hoeven,
Ben Jensen, Fred Schwengel, and John Kyi. This would nullify the corn
program put into effect just the preceding year with the approval of
more than 70 per cent of corn producers who had voted in a referen-
dum. It struck me as completely irresponsible.

All in all I found the reluctance of the Midwest Congressmen, and
especially the Vice President, to support the Administration in this last
chance to complete the farm program vastly frustrating.

On February 2, I sat in on a two-hour meeting of the Republican
legislative leaders at the White House. Nixon presided. No agreement
was reached. In fact, the discussion on agriculture was so thoroughly
disappointing that I couldn't sleep that night. After tossing restlessly for
hours, I got up at 5 : 30, went down to my study in the basement and
drafted a letter.

Dear Dick:

I was deeply concerned and disappointed with the way our meeting
turned out Tuesday morning. For seven long years my associates and I,
in USDA, have fought against great odds, a combination of weak-kneed
Republicans and socialistic Democrats, to bring some sense into a sense-
less program for our farmers, especially in the Midwest.

For twenty-five years both parties have tried to coddle and baby the
most efficient farmers in all the world by imposing upon them a program
they don't want and don't need. Our attempts at Government price fixing
and control of production through regimentations are colossal failures. Yet,
in spite of this fact, last Tuesday some of our own leaders seemed almost
ready to give up all we've gained in the last seven years and embrace
another phony program.

504 CROSS FIRE

In the name of Payment in Kind, another fantastic program of regi-
mentation would be imposed on our corn growers just one year after we
had succeeded in freeing corn from stifling Government regimentation,
decisively rejected by farmers in a referendum, . , .

Sometimes I'm almost tempted to respond to the suggestions of friends
and strangers from all segments of America and get into the presidential
free-for-all myself. Not that victory would be possible, but it might present
a more effective opportunity to tell the American people something of the
politics of agriculture* . , .

The whole sordid mess is beginning to be understood by the American
people and especially the farmers of the "politically important Midwest."
As Republican leaders we'd better wake up to this fact and support pro-
grams that are economically sound and right. As President Ike said to me
in 1953, "If a thing is right it should be done. And if it's right it will
prove to be good politics." I can only add that if the time ever comes,
when what is right is not good politics, it will be a sad day for America!

As ever,
E.T.B.

The letter was not sent. I didn't think it would do much good.

I was scheduled to address the United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable
Association at noon in Chicago. After composing the never-sent letter
to Nixon, I worked on the draft of the farm message until it was time to
leave for the airport. Arriving in Chicago, I went to the Conrad Hilton
Hotel, held a news conference, delivered my speech at a 12 : 30 luncheon,
made a TV tape at WGN and at 4 o'clock enplaned for Washington.

That evening at 7 o'clock as I landed at National Airport, I was
greeted with the chilling news that Senators Karl Mundt, Milton Young,
Carl T. Curtis, and Gordon AUott were insisting that they be filled in on
the contents of the agricultural message before it was approved. This
was most unusual. As a rule only the legislative members and Agricul-
ture Committee heads, such as Dirksen, Halleck, and Aiken, were given
a preview of presidential farm messages.

Some of the Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee were
also clamoring for a preview. This could mean only that these gentlemen
intended to fight their battle at the White House even if it meant putting
themselves in the position of telling the President what to say — and that,
indeed, implied getting far out on a shaky limb.

I telephoned Harlow and Paarlberg to learn what they knew of this
latest development and then got in touch with Marvin McLain, asking
him to meet me at 9:30 that night at the Department.

Marvin, who had kept very close to developments, explained that one
of the points at issue was the Hoeven corn program. Some of the Mid-

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 505

west Republicans regarded Hoeven's proposal as their political skin-
saver. My conviction, based on a thorough analysis by USDA technical
experts was that it would cause heavy damage to farmers and the coun-
try at large.

McLain and I agreed that the truth about the Hoeven program had
to be sent to the President, and fast.

Next morning I enclosed our USDA summary and analysis of the
proposal with a letter to the President, and also sent a copy to the Vice
President.

February 4, i960

Dear Mr. President:

Attached is a brief summary and analysis of the Hoeven Corn Bill.
We're united in our feeling here that it would be tragic for you to put
your stamp of approval or even give important encouragement to a pro-
gram which would reestablish another acreage allotment program for corn
after we have fought for seven years to move in the direction of freedom
for our farmers and their markets.
With warm regard.

Sincerely,
Ezra

That day and the next, we fought to hold the message to the essen-
tials in our original draft. Most of both days I spent on the telephone
talking to people at the White House and on the Hill, explaining the
folly of departing from our Administration program when we were al-
most at the goal line; and stressing, too, the weaknesses of the alterna-
tive proposals. On Saturday, February 6, while I worked on the message
at my office, McLain and our economic adviser Martin Sorkin labored
both at the Department and at the White House with Bryce Harlow,
Paarlberg, and others on the President's staff. By mid-afternoon, we
had all reached agreement. Harlow and Paarlberg took the draft to
Gettysburg to let the President go over this final result of our labors.
That evening Harlow telephoned me, "We're in. The President has ap-
proved the draft with only a few very minor changes."

On Tuesday, February 9, the message originally intended for trans-
mittal in January finally went to the Congress.

The delay, however, bred speculation that I had been slapped
down; that the message displeased me; that it had been drafted at the
White House with little regard for my suggestions; and finally that I'd
almost missed a plane to Chicago on February 8, because I'd made a
last ditch effort to get the President to accept my discarded version.

The message not only had my full support, it contained, basically, our

506 CROSS FIRE

original proposals. As a result of conferences, the language had been
softened in some respects, but no changes were made in the basic con-
cepts. I was pleased with the message. The only thing that bothered me,
in view of the pressing need for immediate action on wheat, was the
delay.

Referring to the wheat problem, the President said:

"I think the American people have every right to expect the Congress
to move promptly to solve situations of this kind. Sound legislation is
imperatively needed. We must quickly and sensibly revise the present
program to avoid visiting havoc upon the very people this program is
intended to help. Every additional day of delay makes a sound solution
more difficult.

"I have repeatedly expressed my preference for programs that will
ultimately free the farmer rather than subject him to increasing govern-
mental restraints. I am convinced that most farmers hold the same
view. But whatever the legislative approach, whether toward greater
freedom or more regimentation, it must be sensible and economically
sound and not a political poultice. And it must be enacted promptly. I
will approve any constructive solution that the Congress wishes to de-
velop, by 'constructive 5 meaning this:

"First, that price support levels be realistically related to whatever
policy the Congress chooses in respect to production control, it being
recognized that the higher the support the more regimented must be the
farmer.

"Second, that price support levels not be so high as to stimulate still
more excessive production, reduce domestic markets, and increase the
subsidies required to hold world outlets.

"Third, for reasons long expressed by the administration, that we
avoid direct subsidy payment programs for crops in surplus; likewise we
must avoid programs which would invite harmful counter measures by
our friends abroad, or which, while seeking to assist one group of farmers,
would badly hurt other farmers."

Within these three guide lines, the message went on, the President
was constantly ready to approve any one or a combination of construc-
tive proposals. He would approve legislation to eliminate production
controls, or to make them really effective, or to allow the farmers them-
selves to choose between realistic alternatives. He would be willing to
gear supports to market prices of previous years, or to establish supports
in accordance with general rather than specific provisions of law, or to
relate price supports to parity.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 507

The Washington Farmletter remarked "Ike dared the Democrats to
do something about wheat in a message that seemed to be conciliatory,
but which was hard as nails."

Most Republicans liked the message; some because they thought it
might produce a program; others because they thought it neatly checked
the bet to the Democrats.

Most of the Democrats sneered. Harold Cooley ranted: "The Presi-
dent's message stakes out the road the rest of the way to bankruptcy for
millions of farm families of America."

The rumors that the farm message as proposed by the USDA had
been completely redone at the instance of the Midwest Republicans
aided by the Vice President had by now become so widespread that
some newsmen regarded them as matters of fact. Thus, among the in-
teresting questions at the President's news conference on February 1 1 :
"Mr. President, could you fill us in, sir, on the Vice President's role in
reshaping the farm message?"

The President: "In what?"

"In reshaping the farm message."

The President: "Well, this is the first that I have heard about him
reshaping it. I required that he read it, because there seems to be a great
probability that in the next few months he is going to be defending what
I believe, and the administration believes, is the best way to approach
this problem. And, naturally, he is completely aware of everything that
is in the message, but I am — this is the first I have heard of any reshap-
ing."

On February 18, in testifying before the House Committee on Agri-
culture, I took an oblique punch at Cooley's charge about our bank-
rupting the farmer. In 1959, 1 stated, we had had another year of record
farm output. Since 1950 the productivity of agricultural workers had
grown more than twice as fast as the productivity of industrial workers.
There was probably no field of economic activity in which the U.S. was
so clearly a world leader as in agriculture.

Some "heartening facts" about agriculture which should not be over-
looked included: Total agricultural assets at a peak of $208,200,000,000
— total debt only $24,000,000,000 or 11J/2 per cent of assets — an in-
crease in net equity of U.S. farmers of $33,000,000,000 since 1952, and
$141,000,000,000 since 1940. One observer wrote that I seemed to be
enjoying myself, appearing willing to take on more of my "old tormen-
tors.' 2 '

508 GROSS FIRE

On Wednesday, March 9, shortly before 10 o'clock in the morning,
I walked into the hearing room of Jamie Whitten's committee for one
of the last times. From 10:00 until 12: 15 and again from 2:00 to 5:00
I sat in the familiar chair before this Committee which had given me the
hardest grillings of any. Whitten had aged some since 1953; so had I.
Since we knew this was a kind of "last joust" between us, we both
pulled our punches just a bit. So, although this hearing couldn't have
been called a love feast, by comparison with some of the earlier sessions
it came close. When I had finished my prepared remarks and had once
again summed up our requests, Whitten referred to our old differences
in mellowed terms.

"Now," he said, "where many of our differences have existed, speak-
ing as chairman of the subcommittee, is this: It is hard sometimes to
recognize mistakes and to learn. One of the hardest things many of us
have to do after we get to be adults is to recognize that we have been
wrong sometimes. . . . Under the basic law, as I conceive price sup-
ports on the basic commodities, it was never intended that the govern-
ment be the purchaser of all these commodities. But by requiring that
production be held in line, since the government would support, it was
believed the farmer could get his price at the market place. . . .

"In sixteen years of close and intense study of this problem, I have
become convinced that efforts to control by acreage not only have
failed, but that they have ended up as an incentive toward increased
production ...

"So I acknowledge my change in opinion in that area. I think we
have to correct this, and we are going to have to quit trying to control
by acreage because it simply won't work. It worked pretty well back in
the 'horse and mule' days and the 'nitrate and soda' days. But now,
with the high cost of fertilizer and the high cost of feed and all the other
things, it will not work.

"Every farmer is still for acreage allotments because he thinks he can
defeat them, but all the farmers collectively cannot do so and they all
end up by producing more at more cost to themselves."

For my part, I was willing to admit that we had made mistakes, too.
Perhaps I had seemed on occasion to be too uncompromising. Perhaps
we did not establish, as fully as we might have, rapport with some in the
Congress. As for our critics, I have no personal bitterness toward any
man and I hope no one is bitter toward me. As I have said before, I love
all God's children — but I love some more than others.

The era, if not of good, at least of better, feeling extended into April
when we went before the Senate Subcommittee on Agricultural Ap-

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 509

propriations. On this occasion Senator Dick Russell said, "While we are
here, I want to make this general observation ... At times I have not
quite known what your farm program was and I have at times been
critical of it. When I have criticized it, I hope that it was not done with
any bitterness. However, I do want to say you have made a great con-
tribution to agricultural research. The Department never has had a
man to preside over it that was more keenly interested in research and
did more to promote all phases of research dealing with agriculture."

I thanked the Senator from Georgia for his kindness, but I knew full
well that these kudos did not unfortunately add up to progress in legislat-
ing our program.

More than ever, Democrats were talking of passing a wheat bill,
satisfactory to them, to be vetoed of course, and then "laying the blame
on Ike" in the coming campaign. They still hadn't agreed, however, on
what kind of a program they could put through. Much of their thinking
leaned toward a 20 per cent cut in acreage allotments combined with
support at 80 per cent of parity — the same as the conference bill voted
down by the House the year before. Though they tried hard to get to-
gether, they faced much the same trouble as we Republicans — too many
conflicting interests, too little willingness to accept the hard facts of the
farm question; besides, they had a lot of candidates elbowing one an-
other as they jockeyed for position in the presidential derby.

One other factor hurting the Democrats' chances at this time was
the success of the cotton program. Since the southern Democrats had
a program most of their cotton constituents liked, they had relatively
less incentive to press for a high support wheat law.

Ellender's poorly attended wheat bill hearings had signaled the Demo-
crats' troubles. Whether their confusion could be turned to advantage
remained to be seen.

41

The Nixon Enigma

A famous Washington institution, the Gridiron Club, in its skits and
satires, gives members of the press and news media an annual oppor-
tunity to roast Washington officialdom.

At the March i960 Gridiron characters portraying Governor Mark
O. Hatfield of Oregon, Barry Goldwater and me carried on as follows:

Governor Hatfield: What we have to decide is — how can we horn-
swoggle some votes from the farmers?

Senator Goldwater: You're absolutely right. The Secretary of Agricul-
ture, Mr. Ezra Benson, is right here, and he has an important announce-
ment.

Secretary Benson: My friends, I have some good news for you.

Republican Traveler: Hurrah! He's gonna resign.

Secretary Benson : Listen! {Sings)

I'll be hanging round — always.

Here's where I'll be found — always

When the farmers mourn,

When their hopes are torn,

I'll supply the corn — always, always,

Ezra's right as rain — always,

Goes against the grain — always,

I am here to stay

Not for just a day,

Not for just a year — but always.

This skit summarized some of the current questioning in political
circles. Did the Vice President want to dissociate himself completely
from me, because he considered me a liability? Did I mistrust the Vice
President as not being in agreement with the Administration's farm
program? I'll try to answer these questions as frankly as I know how.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 5II

My relations with Dick Nixon went through three phases. In the first
years of the Administration, he impressed me as an extraordinarily ener-
getic, efficient, and ambitious young man, a shrewd and able politician,
a hard-working and effective backstop to the President. In farm matters,
he supported the Administration program. During the campaigns of
1954 and 1956, he made some exceedingly effective speeches on the
farm problem.

Sometime after the election of 1956, Nixon, the GOP heir apparent,
became an active candidate. This new development required a new look,
and with it the second phase began. Despite his outstanding qualities
and the excellent training Nixon had received as Vice President, I had
some doubts about his qualifications to become Chief Executive. These
doubts were heightened by events in 1959 and i960.

Nixon's role in the settlement of the steel strike of 1959 disturbed me.
The terms of the settlement seemed to me to be almost certainly infla-
tionary, and Nixon, I thought, came out of it resembling a cat with
political cream all over its whiskers. At the first Cabinet meeting of
i960, early in January, I questioned the steel settlement. It seemed to
me inevitable that the settlement would cause steel prices to rise, if not in
i960 at least in 1961 or 1962, and this would in turn affect other in-
dustries in which labor unions would feel impelled to fight for similar
increases. Any way I looked at it, the steel settlement seemed written in
political ink.

Nixon, Secretary of Labor James P. Mitchell, and Attorney General
William P. Rogers vigorously contested my position. On the other hand,
though they said little, I sensed that Secretary of Commerce Frederick H.
Mueller, Treasury Secretary Robert B. Anderson, and the President
himself were sympathetic.

Following this, Nixon and I had our difficulties over the President's
farm message. Then the first Cabinet meeting in March, presided over
by the Vice President, developed into one of the very few meetings in
which the discussion was almost entirely political. Thruston Morton out-
lined some of the problems of the forthcoming campaign and Bryce
Harlow gave an excellent summary of our political stance with particu-
lar reference to the President's position on the legislative situation.

Harlow brought out these points:

1) This has been the longest period in history in which the White
House and the Congress had been controlled by opposing political
parties.

2) The present two-year period was marked by a Congress with the
biggest opposition majority ever.

5*2 CROSS FIRE

3) Ike was the first legal Lame Duck President in history,

4) Ike was the most popular President ever in his final year,

5) No prior President had been handled so gently by both parties in
Congress.

6) The great influence of the President has forced constructive coop-
eration by Johnson and Rayburn.

7) The outlook for the present Session suggested:

(a) The President will be a dominant force — Democrats can't get
at him,

(b) Politics will rule supreme — politicians not statesmen — dema-
goguery not facts in control,

(c) For the first time four Democratic candidates from the Con-
gress are striving for the Presidency — with the Speaker cam-
paign manager for one.

(d) There were sufficient votes to sustain Presidential vetoes.

(e) There was sufficient strength to compel conservatism in ap-
propriations.

Harlow's presentation was magnificent. Unfortunately, it was fol-
lowed by a brand of wide open political discussion which left me more
than ever in doubt of Dick Nixon's devotion to conservative principles.

My diary entry that night: CC I wish I had more real confidence in the
Vice President's ability to provide wise leadership for the nation. I feel
he does not inspire sufficient confidence among the people. How I wish
we had another Eisenhower to step into the breach/'

By this time, some of the Midwestern Republicans were making an
open and rather desperate effort to get the Vice President to repudiate
the Administration's farm program. Having lost the battle of the farm
message, they now concentrated on winning over the probable candidate.
Members of the Iowa delegation in the House paid him a call, their
spokesman being Congressman Ben F. Jensen, long one of my bitterest
opponents,

I told Flora about it and after we had talked it out, I said that if the
Republican candidate, whoever he might be, accepted the philosophy of
these Republicans who seem to favor the socialization of agriculture,
the party would be in real difficulty. "And I'll fight it — even if that
means fighting the Republican candidate for President. Unless we stand
for programs based on principle rather than political expediency, we
can't hope to win this fall."

At a news conference in March, Clark R. Mollenhoff of the Des
Moines Register and Tribune asked the President:
"Mr. President, Vice President Nixon very recently established an

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 513

independent advisory committee on agriculture to develop some kind of
a farm program independent of the administration. And I wondered if
he had ever discussed with you this agricultural situation and expressed
any dissatisfaction or anything like that."

The President replied that Nixon was party to "the agricultural pro-
gram that I sent down to the Congress." He added, "I don't know about
this development you speak of. I suspect it's something to bring into
sharper focus some of the local problems that will be encountered in any
campaign. I haven't talked further than that with the Vice President
about it."

The Midwesterners were keeping up the pressure on me, too. One
afternoon ex-Governor Victor E. Anderson of Nebraska, a loyal sup-
porter for many years, came to my office. After expressing admiration
for me, he suggested that it might be in my own best interest to step
aside after the Congressional session and make room for a successor.
Such a move, he said, might possibly be of some help in the forthcoming
election that fall. I had been made a "whipping boy" he said; the op-
position had tried to create an image of me as an enemy of the farmer.

Over the years, I've learned that one of the most effective ways of
combating political opposition is to ask a lot of "why" questions. I
kept pressing Vic Anderson with, why this, and why that, until finally
he reluctantly admitted that my getting out might lose us more total
votes than it would gain, although he felt it might increase support of
Republican candidates in the Midwest.

Anderson assured me he had come on his own. I had a feeling, how-
ever, that his visit might have been inspired by the Vice President and
Secretary of the Interior Fred Seaton.

In any event, its rationale sprang from the confused and unfortunate
philosophy that it is more important for certain people to be re-elected
than it is to solve the farm problem. For my part I could think of far
more tragic things than to have certain weai-kneed Republicans in the
Midwest defeated for public office. The sign on my desk was right:
How much this country needs men with a mandate higher than the
ballot box!

A news conference of my own in mid-March found me walking a
tightrope under pressure of lively and vigorous questioning on my rela-
tionship with Mr. Nixon.

On the basis of developments thus far, while I could not wholeheart-
edly endorse the Vice President, I certainly could not repudiate him.
Despite his apparent wavering on the farm issue, it was by no means

514 GROSS FIRE

clear that he would not stand with the Administration's position when
the chips were down.

Ken Scheibel of Gannett News Service asked: "You and Governor
Rockefeller are about the only Republicans who have not endorsed Mr.
Nixon for President. Do you oppose him?"

"Well/' I said, CC I have generally, unless it was an incumbent in office
such as the President, not endorsed anyone before the convention,
whether it be a state convention or national convention.

"I have indicated that I thought the Vice President would make
a good President and that he has had an unusual opportunity which has
been provided by the President to become familiar with the office, the
responsibilities. And it certainly appears today that he is well out in
front."

Next Charles Bailey of the Minneapolis Tribune asked: "Do you think
he would carry out your policies as they are now?"

I replied that I'd be very glad to have anyone trot out a program that
is better than the one we have got. "We're continually looking for im-
provements. If there is a better program, I would like to know what it is.

"But I have reason to believe that the Vice President would support
the administration program, which I think is a good one."

At this point Claude Mahoney of Mutual Broadcasting System put
it right on the line : "You have gone around it slightly. Now, is this an
endorsement of Vice President Nixon?"

And I had to hedge again. "I said earlier that I have generally ad-
hered to a policy of not endorsing before the convention, whether it be
a national or a state convention. I have indicated I thought the Vice
President would make a very good President."

Then Bailey came back with: "If I could just pursue it once more —
the reason this comes up, it may be a little worn, but a number of
Republicans in Congress have been putting out information to the effect
they are given to understand that the Vice President is going to have
some kind of a departure from the present policy. And the questions
along this line are merely an attempt to determine just where you do
stand."

"There has been nothing come to me to indicate that the Vice Presi-
dent is going to depart from the administration's farm program. I am
sure he is interested in trying to improve that program if he can. I would
expect him to be, and I am also.

"Of course, it is conceivable that some of those who go to him will
hope to win him to policies which they have advocated, which I think
are unsound and which I could not support. That is conceivable. But I

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 515

think they have taken the initiative, largely, and not the Vice President
— although he is always glad to consult with people of his own party,
as I am, or people outside if they have ideas regarding an improvement
in our farm program."

Bill Blair of the New York Times then asked: "The question arises
here, while we appreciate your reasons, obvious reasons, for not endors-
ing anyone except the presidential nominee, there is no other candidate
on the horizon on the Republican side. Can you foresee another can-
didate?"

"Well, I don't foresee what is going to happen at the convention. It
would appear now there would not be, Mr. Blair, but we don't know. It
is quite a long time until July."

"Well, in light of that," Blair said, "if it appears that there is not one,
would you say that Mr. Nixon would have your — "
"I would think he would, yes."
"Support?"

"I would think he would."

While I had some reservations that the Vice President would advance
the Eisenhower farm program in its entirety, I was anxious to give him
the benefit of the doubt.

Immediately after this news conference I tried to contact Nixon by
telephone to indicate the position I had taken. Knowing that some feel-
ing existed that an endorsement by me might not be helpful in the Mid-
west Farm Belt, I wanted to assure him that while I had no desire what-
soever to embarrass him, it was my sincere conviction that there was a
great deal of support in agriculture for what the Administration was
attempting to do.

Also I had in mind indicating some very favorable trends in agri-
cultural prices: one, that hogs had topped $17.35 in Chicago that day;
two, that the hog report just released for the ten corn belt states, showed
a reduction of 13 per cent in hog farrowings compared with a year ago;
and three, that the index of prices received by farmers would show a
rather sharp rise for March over the previous month.

Interpreting these for the candidate, I could point out the old ratio
between hog prices and Benson's popularity index.
But I was unable to reach him.

As speculation increased that spring, hardly a day elapsed without a
report from some source reaching me about where the Vice President
actually stood on the farm issue. He made a speech in Lincoln, Nebraska,
in which he recognized the difficulties of the problem and placed the

5l6 CROSS FIRE

responsibility squarely where it belonged, on the Democratic leadership
in the Congress. But then he went on to say that it would be the re-
sponsibility of the candidates of both parties to present to the voters
for their decision new programs to deal with the farm problem.

When, I asked myself, will he get it through his head that the pro-
grams proposed by this Administration on agriculture are good ones? The
only "new" programs needed are those we've been urging for years, the
ones we hadn't yet been authorized to use in full. Or, if he does not be-
lieve this, why doesn't he come out and say so?

On the other hand, my friend Jim McConnell visited with Len Hall,
Nixon's manager in his campaign for the nomination, and reported
back to me — "Len assured me Dick is not listening to the radicals and
he won't stray far from the administration farm program."

My own doubts about the Vice President's qualifications, however,
seemed rather widely shared. In May I went to Capitol Hill and visited
a good many Republican members of the House, I found a surprising
dissatisfaction with the Vice President, especially among those from his
own state of California, Some figured he couldn't win, the same argu-
ment used so effectively against Taft in 1952. Others didn't cotton to
the way he seemed to be taking the conservatives for granted while ap-
pealing to the independents and semi-liberals for support.

Adding to my personal reservations about Nixon, reservations that
stemmed from his wavering on the farm program and the political steel
settlement, was his apparent willingness to go farther than the Presi-
dent, and certainly much farther than I thought wise, in Federal aid
to education.

In May, I sent the President a letter which read in part:

May 26, i960
Dear Mr. President:

I was very much disturbed to read in the Wall Street Journal this morn-
ing an article indicating that "Vice president Nixon apparently has sold
the Eisenhower Administration on accepting a Democratic Federal Aid to
Education Bill with certain modifications." I sincerely hope this is not
so. . . .

The program for Federal aid to education currently proposed may not
appear to contemplate a high degree of Federal financing and decision
making. But you know, as I do, that "once the camel gets his nose under the
tent" there is no telling how far he will go.

I cannot too strongly urge that we continue to guard against the proposed
shift of responsibility in education to the Federal government.

Topping it all off was a trait which the Vice President had developed
to a fine art: the ability, to borrow an FDR phrase, of carrying water
on both shoulders.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 517

James Reston, the popular New York Times columnist, had summed
up what a lot of us had been thinking in recent months in an assortment
of cliches assessing the Nixon strategy.

"His problem in this election is to have two strings to his bow, to
come out flat-footed for Eisenhower and still be cock of the walk; to
carry water on both shoulders without upsetting the applecart; to fish
in, and pour oil on, troubled waters; to defend the past and take time
by the forelock without falling between two stools; and, of course, to
bring home the bacon through thick and thin.

"All this is enough to make strong men quiver, but Mr. Nixon is
the kind of fellow who can steer between Scylla and Charybdis and
take both precincts,"

In June, I had a letter from Albert K. Mitchell, a member both of
the Republican National Committee and the National Agricultural Ad-
visory Commission, commenting on the Vice President's attitude:

I am going to be frank in stating, Ezra, that Dick Nixon went up in my
estimation in his answer to a question from a Corn Belt State Committee
Member as to the plan to handle the agricultural problem and the "Benson
Program." Nixon stated in unqualified terms — looked at me several times in
his statement — that your program was sound and the only sound solution to
a problem impossible to a simple solution. He stated the present agricultural
program was not your program but the program "watered down" by a
Democratic program of the Congress.

Frankly, your removal as a politically expedient move was suggested and
he said in positive terms this could not and would not be done. He admired
you for your stand on the program you had advocated and recommended,
for it was the only sound program.

Every time that we seemed to gain a little, however, in convincing
the Vice President and some of those around him that our farm pro-
gram was right and not a political liability, something happened to
give the opposition an opportunity to scream that our stock was
skidding again. Late in June, Quentin N. Burdick was sent to the
United States Senate by the voters of North Dakota. With the help of
a very strong Farmers Union campaign, Burdick won the state by a
tiny margin. The Democrats, of course, sought to have this read as a
revolt against Republican farm policies. Actually, Governor John E.
Davis, whom Burdick defeated, had been anything but a staunch sup-
porter of our farm policies.

The comment of an editorial writer in the Washington Post seemed
to me to evaluate the situation fairly well. "With so many cross-currents
entering into the contest, any sweeping conclusions would be risky. The
truth seems to be that the farmers and townspeople of North Dakota are
about as divided on questions of agricultural policy as is Congress itself."

5*8 CROSS FIRE

On the other hand, Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller increasingly im-
pressed me. He had withdrawn from the race for the Republican nomi-
nation in December 1959 partly because he felt Nixon had already
sewed up most of the delegates to the convention, and partly because he
(Rockefeller) believed the only way Nixon could now be headed off was
by an all-out bitter party fight which might so disrupt the GOP as to
insure a Democratic success in the fall.

Late in February I had a conference with the Governor at his New
York City office at 22 West 55th Street. Evidently Rockefeller believed
his withdrawal from the campaign had been wise. Also, he seemed
genuinely relieved that he could give to the people of New York State
the full measure of his energies, something he could not have done while
involved in strenuous campaigning for the nomination. We both agreed,
however, that the Vice President would have great difficulty in winning
the election unless something occurred which would make it possible for
him to pull out all the conservatives or else heavily from the independent
and Democratic sectors of the electorate. The Governor seemed to feel
that the Vice President had a good many of the delegates in his pocket —
and yet he felt, as I did, that there was an undercurrent of uncertainty
about Mr. Nixon on the part of many people.

The dilemma appeared to be that the Vice President, if nominated,
probably could not win; while Rockefeller could win but probably
would not be nominated.

Inexplicably, interest in my own political future continued until at
last it became a question we could no longer ignore or dismiss out of
hand.

At a luncheon of the National Young Republicans in the Willard
Hotel in Washington during January 1960, I sat next to Pat Nixon.
When my name was called in the midst of the introductions, the entire
assemblage rose — I was naturally pleased but somewhat embarrassed.

Another time at the Sheraton-Park, after the entire Cabinet had been
introduced, Postmaster General Summerfield whispered, "That should
have warmed your heart. You got more applause by far than anyone
else."

Business, professional, and farm groups had been indicating interest
in my political future. The American Dental Association, for example,
meeting in Chicago in February i960, accorded me one of the most
rousing receptions I have ever had anywhere.

In the middle of February, Flora, Beverly, Beth, one of Beth's friends,
and I drove into the mountains of Maryland for a short winter vaca-

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 519

tion at Camp David, about a two-hour drive from downtown Wash-
ington. A foot-deep blanket of snow had transformed the camp into a
veritable fairyland. Later that night, Reed and May came to join us.
This was a long weekend, with Washington's Birthday, a holiday, falling
on Monday.

After sleighriding, we chatted before the fire, and thoroughly
thrashed out the subject of my future in government and politics. While
almost my every inclination rebelled against it, Reed in particular em-
ployed all his persuasiveness to get me to give the matter further con-
sideration. After long, earnest and prayerful discussion, I finally de-
cided to seek the further counsel of President McKay, when we were
next in Salt Lake City.

On March 5, Reed and I took a plane together to Salt Lake. There,
in a long talk with President McKay, I outlined the political situation
as I saw it, including the undertone of doubt and fear that seemed to
be growing regarding the Vice President and his leadership; I also
mentioned the increasing evidence of support to make myself available
for further service in the government, support from individuals as well
as groups, usually by word of mouth. I made it plain that I had no
aspirations whatever for political office. Following these preliminary
remarks, Reed made an excellent presentation of the entire issue.

The venerable, grey-haired eighty-eight-year-old prophet listened in-
tently. Then, speaking in his quiet forceful manner, he appraised some
of the political developments and current national leaders. The country
needed more patriots and real statesmen, he said. Finally he suggested
that we watch this developing groundswell closely for the next few
weeks and that if we did, we should have the answer by the time of our
Church conference in April.

A month later, when the Church conference was held in Salt Lake
City, President McKay and I talked again. He was most kind in his
remarks regarding my work in Washington, saying that it would "stand
for all time as a credit to the Church and the nation," as well as to my
family and me.

Thanking him for his confidence, I said, "I'll be back with you in
January."

A few days after this, Governor Rockefeller called. I suggested that he
go to the people and present his views on the important issues. Competi-
tion would be good for the party. It would add interest and spirit.
"There might still be a chance," I said, "for you and a good conserva-
tive, such as Barry Goldwater, to be nominated."

520 CROSS FIRE

He shot back, "Much as I like Barry, I would rather have Ezra Taft
Benson as my running mate."

Well, I said, I wasn't fishing, but I did hope he would concentrate on
making some public appearances in the next few weeks to see what
develops,

Goldwater represented my basic philosophy more closely than either
Nixon or Rockefeller. I urged him, too, to get in touch with Rockefeller.
They apparently did not act on the suggestion.

Then in June, Rockefeller released a bombshell by making an attack
on the Vice President and to a lesser degree on the Eisenhower Adminis-
tration, particularly in national defense. That afternoon Rockefeller
telephoned. I congratulated him on his forthright challenge, and ex-
pressed the hope that it would add spirit and interest to the Republican
campaign even though I didn't agree with him on all of his statements.

"Governor," I said, "many people, I feel sure, are anxious to hear
you speak out on other issues, such as our relationship with Russia and
the proposed pay bill for Federal employees, and also the pending legisla-
tion on wheat." He said he would, from time to time. Unfortunately,
it was long past the eleventh hour. I wondered if the Governor realized
now that he had made a serious mistake in withdrawing from the com-
petition for the nomination several months before. In any event I did
appreciate learning that his position on agriculture was much in line with
my own.

The third phase in my relationship with Nixon was down the road
yet — a rather tragic road at that.

42

Stymied

Congressional confusion on farm legislation had now reached a pitch
unparalleled at any time during the Eisenhower Administration. A few
Democratic leaders in the House thought a hairbreadth possibility still
existed of passing a general farm bill — not with any hope of the Presi-
dent's signing it, but something to hold up to the farmers in the cam-
paign as an evidence of Democratic concern. Senator Ellender, on the
other hand, scoffed at this as a waste of time, effort, and energy; pass a
wheat bill and be done with it, that was his notion. If the President
signed it, the Democrats could still claim the credit. If he refused,
the Democrats could get as much mileage out of this veto as out of the
veto of an impossible to pass omnibus bill.

Congressman Bob Poage, the Texas farm liberal, and nineteen other
Democrats pushed hard for what they termed a "Family Farm Bill."
Similar to bills previously proposed by Senator Hubert Humphrey and
Senator Stuart Symington, it proposed to turn over to the USDA and
committees of farmers the responsibility for working out farm programs
commodity by commodity. Congress would have a veto power, and
nothing else. Eliminated from earlier drafts of the bill was any refer-
ence to the tools to be used in providing price supports. In other words,
there was no mention of a Brannan Plan type of payment. This fooled
nobody. It meant not that such payments were ruled out, but simply
that the sponsors of the bill preferred not to talk about them.

In mid-March, the House Agriculture Committee pulled a rather
good gimmick, bringing in seven Democratic governors from the Mid-
west to testify before the Committee in support of the Family Farm Bill.
In this way the Committee hoped to dramatize that these strong and
true Democratic hearts did indeed bleed for the plight of the farmer. At

522 CROSS FIRE

the same time they served notice on the southern Democrats that their
colleagues in the Midwest wanted action on a farm program now.

Unfortunately for them, the Southerners happened to be in no mood
to listen, because the perennial battle over civil rights had broken out
again in the House.

I was amused by a comment in the Washington Farmletter that this
was reminiscent of several years ago "when four or five Republican
governors huffed and puffed at the White House without smoking out
Ezra."

The House Committee had another problem too. In an effort to
mount all possible support for the Family Farm Bill, the Committee
leaders decided to add to the bill wheat provisions similar to those in the
vetoed wheat bill of 1959. Most Congressmen from the wheat states,
however, were still just as much opposed to this measure as they had
been a year earlier. Instead of gaining support the Committee might
well have lost a little. The backing they needed most of all was that of
the southern Congressmen, and though the wheat provision had per-
haps some appeal to them, it didn't begin to counteract their grievance
against the northern liberals over civil rights, especially since many of
these Northerners were also the liberal leaders on farm legislation.

Meantime, nineteen Senators were sponsoring a wheat bill under the
bipartisan leadership of Senator Frank Carlson of Kansas and Warren G.
Magnuson, a Democratic Senator from Washington, Milt Young came
back from one of the Tuesday legislative leaders meetings at the White
House with the announcement that the President would accept a wheat
bill providing for price support at 80 per cent of parity and a 20 per
cent cut in acreage allotments. For my part, I was pretty sure this was
wishful thinking, though admittedly such a bill was far preferable to the
90 per cent support and 25 per cent cut the President had vetoed in

*959-
What bothered me considerably more than Young's announcement

were the indications that Congressman Poage, aided by Sam Rayburn
and other Democrats, was bringing heavy pressure on Senate Majority
Leader Lyndon Johnson to back the Family Farm Bill. After all, Johnson
very clearly had his eye on the Democratic nomination for the Presi-
dency. Already able to count on virtually all of the southern and con-
servative members of the Democratic party, he would, if some of the
northern Midwest liberals swung behind him, occupy an excellent posi-
tion from which to drive ahead toward the nomination.

On March 31, Lyndon Johnson and I had a frank conference at the
Capitol. I called his attention to the marked change in sentiment among

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 523

farmers in the matters of government controls and price fixing, as evi-
denced by the various polls and surveys.

"I'm talking to you off the record," I said, "as friend to friend, even
though we are of different political parties. I have a deep conviction
that your support of the Poage bill would be bad not only for the coun-
try but for you yourself, personally and politically." When we shook
hands and I had left him an analysis of the bill, I had the feeling that
he truly appreciated the visit. In any event, I was quite sure he was far
too smart to endorse or support the Poage proposal.

Late in April, the Senate Agricultural Committee approved the "80-
20" wheat proposal, but with another feature added. Farmers would
get 80 per cent of parity price support for reducing their acres 20 per
cent below their farm allotments and they would receive in addition a
payment "in kind" from CCC stocks equal to 50 per cent of their aver-
age yield on the retired acres. In plainer words, this meant that a farmer
whose allotment was 100 acres and who planted only 80 acres would be
entitled to draw out of CCC stocks of wheat an amount equal to half
his normal yield on the 20 idle acres. If his normal yield was 400 bushels
on these 20 acres, he could draw out 200 bushels of wheat from the
CCC for sale in the market.

This bill had some appeal to the wheat representatives in the House,
but not quite enough; they sought to raise the ante from the 80-20-50
formula to 85-25-55.

All this while, in the House Committee, the Poage bill was being
stripped of layer after layer of its provisions. Cotton, tobacco, and rice
were pulled out of the bill and by mid-May all that remained of this
measure, which originally had included all farm commodities, was feed
grains and wheat. Even though it now represented little more than a
framework on which to build future legislation, if indeed the bill in its
now much-compromised form, could be passed, Cooley, Poage, and the
majority on the House Agriculture Committee determined to push the
bill through. They tried as best they could to put a good face on it.
Wheat and feed grains, they argued, constituted the bulk of the existing
surpluses, indeed, they made up about $7,400,000,000 of the total CCC
investment of $9,200,000,000. Unwittingly they testified to the success we
had had in dealing off the surpluses in dairy products, cotton, oilseeds
and other commodities.

Interestingly enough, the grapevine had it that Lyndon Johnson had
swung around and would do all he could to shepherd the Poage bill in
the Senate once it successfully made the journey through the House,
Speaker Rayburn and Governor Herschel C. Loveless of Iowa reportedly

5^4 GROSS FIRE

had talked him into it. Still I had my reservations. Lyndon knew if
anyone did the extent of Congressional reluctance to establish a prece-
dent whereby the USDA and committees of farmers would be empow-
ered to write their own farm laws, subject only to approval in a farm
referendum and with Congress reduced to the status of a vetoing agency.

In mid-May the Family Farm Bill, now renamed the "Farm Surplus
Reduction Act of i960," was reported out by the House Ag Committee
on almost a straight party-line vote. All the Republicans on the Com-
mittee voted against it, and all the Democrats except Representative
Harold B. McSween of Louisiana voted to report it out. This did not
mean that all the Democrats would support it once it came to a vote
on the floor. Representative Thomas G. Abernethy, a Democratic Con-
gressman from Mississippi and a strong cotton man, let it be known
that he had registered his opposition.

Early in June, evidently tired both of Ellender's needling and of wait-
ing for the House to determine the fate of the Farm Surplus Reduction
Act, the Senate passed a wheat bill It was the same as the measure
previously reported out by the Senate Agricultural Committee except
that the formula was now 75-20-50. Price support would stay at 75 per
cent of parity, the national allotment would be permanently cut 20 per
cent from the present 55,000,000 acres to 44,000,000; and payment in
kind would be made on 50 per cent of the normal yield on the retired
acres. Fanners could take their payment either in wheat or in negotiable
certificates, which they could then redeem for dollars. Moreover, a
farmer could if he wished retire much more than 20 per cent of his
wheat acres — in fact, he could retire his entire wheat allotment provided
the payment in kind did not exceed $10,000 a year. This would be done
under a three-year contract. In short, a farmer with a yield of 25 bushels
per acre and an allotment of about 450 acres could sign a contract to
take it all out of production for three years and collect $10,000 per
yeax.

We in the USDA considered this bill, on balance, the best of a bad
lot. We didn't like it, but it might be one way to begin to bring wheat
supplies more into line with demand. We felt that 75 per cent of parity
was still too high a price to enable our wheat to move freely into com-
petitive markets.

Moreover, the payment feature would surely prove expensive. Even
more doubtful, however, was the efficacy of this 20 per cent reduction
in acreage. Personally, I had seen the ingenuity of U.S. farmers nullify
acreage reduction so many times that I could have little confidence in

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 525

this method. Besides, this was merely another extension of controls over
U.S. farmers' freedom to plant, market, and compete.

The Farm Bureau seemed to think the wheat bill moved in the right
direction, most Congressmen from the wheat states considered it a step
in the wrong direction, and I believed it to be a step in both the right
and the wrong direction at the same time.

On June 23, the House voted on the Poage bill. Surprisingly, the
measure got much more southern support than we had anticipated. But
a good many more city Democrats from the Northeast turned thumbs
down than the bilPs supporters had expected. When a couple of at-
tempts to substitute the Senate wheat bill for the Poage measure lost by
rather narrow majorities, things were looking up for the bill's supporters.
In the final vote, however, the tally was 170 in favor of the Farm Sur-
plus Reduction Act of i960 and 236 against.

So ended the legislative story on agriculture of these eight years. In
view of this history, I feel entirely justified in repeating what I said so
often during the eight years as Secretary: The farm problem is largely
the refusal of Democratic Congresses from 1955 on to make long-needed
changes.

They sought to pin the blame on us. They said, "We gave Benson just
about everything he asked for. The program that isn't working is the
Benson program. 5 *

This is false. We never had anything like the full program we asked
for. We got some of what we recommended — but even this, in many
cases, came too late to be most effective.

Where we had, or were given, the authority to make price supports
realistic, the results were good. The dairy industry is an example, even
though here again we did not receive all the flexibility in establishing
price support that we needed. From a condition where surpluses of
milk, butter, and cheese were choking the entire dairy industry, we
moved to a position where supply and demand for milk were in balance.

Corn is another example — even though here again we belatedly got
only part of what we asked for. Corn growers in 1959 and i960 were
given freedom to plant as much as they wished at reduced supports.
Though acreage increased, corn consumption, both for domestic use
and for export, shot up. If a wheat program had been enacted similar
to that for corn, we might have been well on the way to a solution of the
food and feed grains problem.

Where we were not required by law to put farmers in a strait jacket
— as for hogs, cattle, fruits, and vegetables — producers did a good job
of adjusting supply to demand and of developing their markets. Soy-

5^6 CROSS FIRE

bean producers, especially, showed what could be done to develop
markets when they were not hamstrung by controls and price fixing.

Cotton producers, given an opportunity to increase their acreage in
conjunction with lower price support, responded. Here again, though
we got only a part of what we recommended, the results have proved
themselves. Cotton producers all over the South have told me they not
only like the program but that they'll fight any attempt to take it away
from them.

The real problem areas in agriculture when we left office were wheat,
tobacco, and peanuts — but especially wheat. And these are the com-
modities for which our recommendations were turned down almost, it
seemed, times without number.

This is the sad story which I entitle "Stymied." Why were we stymied?
One must draw his own conclusions. But it is interesting to note that one
of our most bitter and blatant critics in the opposition party is reputed to
have said after 1958, "I think the farm issue is good for one more
political campaign,"

Early in July, I had a long visit with the President at the White
House. He was relaxed and not pressed for time and we had an espe-
cially friendly talk.

He expressed deep appreciation for my services. He was concerned
about the criticism that had been leveled against me, emphasizing that
the left wing group had singled me out as a scapegoat to avoid meeting
the issues squarely.

He said, "Ezra, for the balance of our terms in office I want you to
continue to make some things clear through news conferences and other
methods.

"These things — that you came here at my request and have stayed
on through my insistence.

"That for seven and one-half years we have made a vigorous effort
to find what is the proper relationship between government and farmers.
We have become convinced, as we believe farmers are, that there should
be a minimum of government interference and control of agriculture —
that we must move toward greater freedom.

"That we have fought for what we believe is right for agriculture.

"And, Ezra," he concluded, "don't give an inch in the stand you
have taken. Make it clear to the people that you and I stand shoulder
to shoulder in what we feel is best for agriculture and the country."

He suggested that I talk with the Vice President, saying that he felt

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 527

Mr. Nixon, if nominated, would not veer far from the agricultural
policies we advocated because "he can't afford to."

What it was I don't precisely know but something about the Presi-
dent's words and actions that last year and especially that summer
made me see him a bit more than ever before in a kind of Lincolnesque
light.

The President was particularly impressed by Lincoln's principle that
"the legitimate object of government is to do for the people what needs
to be done, but which they cannot, by individual effort, do at all, or do
so well, by themselves." Again, I say, this principle influenced his think-
ing on most of the problems that came before him. It explained why
he made such a point so often of discoursing on the dangers of big
government. It explained why he was so concerned about balancing
the budget, combating inflation, preserving a sound dollar. To do this
was, he felt, vital for the preservation of our free and independent
American way of life. And he did slow down greatly the cheapening of
the dollar. Between 1940 and 1952, the buying power of a dollar
dropped about 47 cents. Between 1952 and i960 the decline was about
7 cents.

Sometimes, and again like Lincoln, the President had to fight dog-
gedly and patiently for his principles even against the members of his
own official family.

Take what happened at one meeting of the Cabinet in June i960, a
meeting devoted largely to budgetary matters. For a full thirty minutes
the President talked with utmost earnestness about the dangers of con-
centrating more and more and yet more authority in the Federal Gov-
ernment. It was vitally necessary, he said, to cut government expendi-
tures. He inveighed against the tendency to forget the old and tried
virtues of initiative, industry, and independence which build strong men
and women. His sincerity and eagerness so moved me that when he con-
cluded his remarks with the words, "That's exactly the way I feel," I
blurted out, "Mr. President, that is exactly the way I feel also."

To my surprise and disappointment, no other member of the Cabinet
at this time remarked favorably on the President's dissertation.

Maurice H. Stans, the Director of the Budget, who was present, later
offered favorable comments and no doubt Bob Anderson, Fritz Mueller,
and Arthur Summerfield also approved. But their silence disturbed me
because it seemed to indicate a muzzling of those voices in the Republi-
can Party which represented the sound conservative view, and the as-
cendency in the party and the Cabinet, too, of those who failed to see
the dangers in a policy of more and bigger government. I could not

5^8 CROSS FIRE

but fear for the future of our country unless influential voices were
raised in crescendo, calling not only for a halt but a reversal of this
trend.

Though it was not terribly important in itself, an indication of the
rising tide of irresponsibility in government was the passage of pay raise
legislation for Federal employees in the summer of i960 over the Presi-
dent's veto. In the President's opinion, and mine, there was no valid
basis for this legislation at this particular time, because the whole
Federal pay structure was then being studied by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics with intent to iron out inequities. The effect of the pay raise
bill, if it became law, would of course be inflationary; beyond that it
would compound the inequities already existing in the general pay
structure.

Now the President, you should know, was both naturally and by self-
training ebullient, optimistic, not easily discouraged. He sometimes told
the following incident.

"I had an old general that I thought the world of as my teacher years
ago. And one day I was working on something pretty hard, down in
Panama. I didn't see any way out of it. And he said to me, 'Well, I will
tell you, Eisenhower, there is one thing sure. The harder a problem is,
the more necessary it is to smile. A tough one is never won by a long
face, don't forget that.' "

Despite his fighting spirit, I saw the President on Friday, July 1, i960,
at Cabinet come pretty close to discouragement — closer than ever before
— and it was over the implications of the pay raise issue. The Congress
had passed the pay raise bill and the President had vetoed it. Now the
question was, would Congress sustain his action? The House had already
overridden him. Before Cabinet that day he had spent the early morn-
ing trying to get the support of enough Republican Senators whose votes,
if added to those of a handful of stouthearted Democrats, could provide
the necessary "one-third plus one." But it was a futile effort and he
knew it. Tight-lipped and grim, the President remarked that some of
our Republican Senators simply lacked moral courage and backbone.

Later that same day the veto was overriden in the Senate by a vote
of 74 to 24. A shift of nine votes would have saved the day. For lack of
them, sound government took a step backward, and the Congress for
only the second time in seven and one-half years overrode an Eisenhower
veto.

One reason for the rapport between us was probably the conviction,
mutually held, that if free, competitive enterprise was successfully to
meet the challenge of centralized communism, it would require, above

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 529

all, a policy of living within our means. We could not outdo the Com-
munists in big government with its centralization and controls. If we
were to compete on that basis, we were already as good as defeated.

Our problem was how to improve the working of a private, competi-
tive, free economic system in a free government. To me, this meant get-
ting our debts down, and giving assurance to the world that our system
was healthy and would endure. We were trying to provide too many
services too fast, at the sacrifice of not living within our means and
paying as we went. Above all, there was a need to give special attention
to the spiritual values and basic concepts upon which our nation had
been built. These were some of the things I had been emphasizing for a
decade and they seemed to be in complete agreement with the President's
thinking.

This does not mean that we always saw eye to eye on the specific ap-
plications of these principles. The President seemed willing to go farther
than I thought wise in providing Federal aid to education. It was, and
is, my conviction that large grants of Federal funds are not the answer
to our educational needs. There is no special magic in a Federal-
supported dollar. National grants for education will, I fear, mean con-
trolled education in the long run.

I pressed this point repeatedly with him, even to the extent of needling
him. He never failed to thank me. He'd say something such as, "There is
no question as to my instinctive agreement with the convictions you
express," and then he would state his view that there was a "collision"
of principles involved: on the one hand, there was the need for a good
educational system and, on the other, the danger of increased Federal
authority.

Once he sent me a letter that closed with these words:

"Only the wisdom of Solomon could really decide how to divide
this baby."

The Conventions

In mid- July the Democratic platform was read to a nationwide TV
audience by Chester Bowles of Connecticut and approved by the Los
Angeles Convention. It ranked as the worst platform drawn up by either
major party at any time within my memory.

Obviously, as Senator Spessard L. Holland of Florida said in a televi-
sion interview on the Democratic Convention floor earlier that week,
the extreme left wing elements had gained complete control of the

53° GROSS FIRE

party's platform. What was especially disappointing to me was that the
self-styled progressive forces in the Democratic Party demonstrated such
a poverty of ideas in tackling the problems facing agriculture, probably
our most pressing domestic issue.

The platform unblushingly admitted that the only farm programs
the Democrats could offer the nation were programs of failure. They
presented nothing else. The cornerstone of the farm plank was a rebaked
Brannan Plan.

Other gimmicks included more subsidies at unrealistic price support
levels, unworkable production controls, a costly and wasteful food stamp
plan, and unbridled give-aways of food and fiber to the world seemingly
without regard for domestic or world markets.

Here was a prime example of using the rusty nails of a bygone era to
hammer together a warped and worm-eaten program which had already
caused most of our current troubles in agriculture.

How did Democratic nominee John F. Kennedy feel about it?

I didn't believe that Senator Kennedy was as far left as some of his
party. As a senator he had said once to me that he was one Senator who
believed in what I was trying to do. "And my Massachusetts farmers
believe in it, too." He not only voiced this thought; he was registered in
black and white in support of flexible supports — until he came down
with presidential virus.

Then how explain that farm plank? Governors Orville L. Freeman of
Minnesota and Herschel G. Loveless of Iowa, I understood, engineered
much of it in collaboration with Professor Willard W. Cochrane of the
University of Minnesota as their economic adviser. Economics!

Immediately following the Democratic Convention and the nomina-
tion of the Kennedy- Johnson ticket I began to give much thought to the
preparation of a statement on agriculture for submission to the Vice
President and the Republican Platform Committee, as well as for general
release. The socialistic platform adopted by the Democrats, it seemed to
me, gave us Republicans a real opportunity to seize the initiative on the
farm issue.

We prepared and released a statement which reviewed the problems
we had inherited in 1953, the difficulties encountered in providing new
legislation, the progress made, as well as proposals for a realistic pro-
gram for the future, and called it Where We Stand. It created some
stir in Chicago as the Republicans assembled there for the Convention,
to get under way the following week. Newspaper reports were excellent.
I hoped Where We Stand would stiffen the backbone of some of those
on the Platform Subcommittee on Agriculture.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 53 1

During the week before the Republican Convention, the political
caldron boiled with claims and counterclaims, reports and denials. Many
unorganized elements in the party evidenced a strong desire to have
Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller on the ticket. I was approached by a
number of individuals, both over the telephone and in person, and
urged to indicate whom I felt would be most likely to run best against
Senator Kennedy. On Thursday, July 21, I noted in my diary: / am
convinced that Governor Rockefeller would stand the best chance of
winning of any prospective Presidential candidate. I may say this before
the week is over. The next day, after much thought and prayerful con-
sideration, and after conferring with several close friends, I decided to
speak up:

I have consistently refused to endorse a candidate for the Republican
Presidential nomination prior to the action of the Party's Convention. This
continues to be my policy. However, I have been asked to comment on the
relative strength of the candidates under consideration in this important
election year.

Having traveled possibly as widely in the United States as any other Re-
publican in the past 7^2 years, I am convinced that Governor Rockefeller
would stand the best chance of defeating Senator Kennedy.

The Governor would pull heavily from Republicans, Independents, and
Democrats and, I strongly believe, he would win.

Although on some issues I feel Governor Rockefeller may be somewhat
too liberal, he is devoted to our basic American concepts and would make a
great President and he should certainly appear on the Republican Party's
national ticket.

Many times in the next few days I was asked why I had made this
statement, particularly at this time, when the outcome of the Conven-
tion so far as the Vice President was concerned was, and indeed had
been for some time, almost a foregone conclusion.

It was not that I did not think the Vice President would make a
good President over-all, despite my doubts concerning his position on
agriculture, labor, and aid to education, among other things. I felt sure
he would be immeasurably preferable to the immature and inexperi-
enced Senator from Massachusetts, running on the strongly socialistic
platform of the Democratic Party. But I doubted that Nixon could win
and I felt quite sure that Rockefeller would be successful should he be
nominated. And there was perhaps still some faint, forlorn hope that a
spark might yet start a Rockefeller-Goldwater conflagration.

I had no illusions that my statement could really influence many
delegates, or even a single one. At most I thought it might conceivably
be a small factor in helping to get the governor's name before the con-

532 CROSS FIRE

vention as a contender for the nomination. Failing that, it might have
some slight effect in getting him to accept the Vice Presidential nomina-
tion, possibly saving the ticket from defeat.

Behind it all was the feeling that I just didn't want the nomination
to go completely by default without someone raising his voice. Com-
petition would be good for the party. In retrospect my gesture was, I
suppose, rather futile; but I'm glad I had my say however little, how-
ever late, it may have been.

With Flora and Beverly, I went to the Republican National Conven-
tion in Chicago, and when Mark and Lela joined us there, and Reed
came on in mid-week, it was indeed a delightful get-together. As I sat in
the Convention Hall during the first of those five days, I thought again
and again of the magnificent human resources in the party and in the
nation} I cannot believe that anyone who saw and heard Herbert
Hoover failed to be inspired by the wonderful message filled with
spirituality delivered by our eighty-six-year-old former President.

Tuesday was "Ike Day," and the President's address that evening
struck me as the finest political speech I had ever heard him give. The
wonderful enthusiasm of that huge hall, jam-packed with people, for
him and his leadership after 7/2 years brought a lump to my throat.

In an exciting session Wednesday evening the candidates were placed
in nomination, and on Thursday Richard M. Nixon and Henry Cabot
Lodge made their speeches of acceptance. The Vice President rose to
remarkable heights of eloquence in what was truly a masterful ad-
dress. When he neatly turned Khrushchev's famous gibe against the
Russian leader himself, saying that Khrushchev's grandchildren would
live under freedom, it seemed that the tumultuous applause, whistling,
and shouting would lift the roof right off the building.

I remember thinking, If he can give the American people this kind of
inspiration throughout the campaign, he'll win, and win big.

With the nomination of Richard Milhous Nixon as the Republican
candidate for President, the third phase of our relationship began. He
was the choice of my party and I wanted to support him wholeheartedly.
I only hoped he would not make it impossible for me to do so.

I sent him a note of congratulations, asking if there was any way in
which I could be helpful. . . .

1 The only really spontaneous response of the delegates to any potential candidate
was to Senator Goldwater. It was gratifying. I thought then as I have many times
since that he could provide the type of strong White House leadership that the
country was going to need.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 533

On Thursday morning at the request of Governor Rockefeller, I had
gone to his headquarters in the Sheraton-Towers Hotel for a half-hour
conference. He expressed deep gratitude for the support and interest in
his unannounced candidacy and hoped that we might keep in close
touch with each other in the years ahead. I remained very favorably
disposed by his deep convictions, his spirituality, and his winning per-
sonality.

That same day Fred Seaton called to arrange an appointment for the
next day to talk over aspects of the coming campaign. He told me, as
Rollis Nelson of the Republican National Committee had earlier, that
the Vice President had asked Fred to help set up a meeting on the Mid-
west farm problem. Frankly, I was disappointed to learn that Fred had
been selected by Nixon to work with him on the farm problem. In my
opinion, Fred, who had made a rather showy but abortive effort to be
nominated for Vice President, was prone to put politics first, even to the
point of supporting economically erratic programs if he felt they would
be popular. I would be away on a trade trip at the time of the proposed
Midwest meeting but I suggested people to be invited.

43

In Search of Markets, and of Friends

At about noontime on July 30, accompanied by eight newsmen, three
members of my staff, Flora, Beth, and I took off from Washington Na-
tional Airport for an 18-day trip, to Belgium, West Germany, the
Netherlands, France, Egypt, Jordan, and Israel.

As before, our purposes were to observe the agriculture of these
countries, noting how effectively our agricultural export programs were
operating. We wanted to investigate the possibilities of increasing sales
and by personal contact with government officials and trade representa-
tives to encourage economic good will. In particular, I wanted to explore
the implications of the newly developing European Common Market
for U.S. agriculture.

Six nations of Western Europe — France, Belgium, Italy, Germany,
Luxembourg, and the Netherlands — were engaged in building market
policies which would enable them to act as an economic confederation.
They would trade freely with one another, while maintaining such
tariffs as they considered necessary against imports from other countries.
We appreciated the broad objectives of the European Economic Com-
munity and supported the idea of a larger market that would make pos-
sible economies that could not otherwise be gained. But some major
trade features had been proposed which gave us great concern. We
feared they would become a serious obstacle to the development and
expansion of trade between the Common Market and the U.S.

For example, strong forces within the Common Market were seeking
to set farm support prices at levels high above world prices. This would
be accompanied by sharp increases in tariffs that would cut deeply into
trade with countries outside the Market. The U.S. and others among
these countries would then become mere residual suppliers. Since the

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 535

Common Market countries bought about one-fourth of our farm exports
sold for dollars, we could ill afford to lose a large part of these sales.
On this trip I planned to visit with Dr. Sicco C. Mansholt, chairman
of the agricultural group of the European Economic Community and
former Minister of Agriculture in the Netherlands; also with the Minis-
ters of Agriculture and other officials of Belgium, West Germany, the
Netherlands, and France.

We arrived in Brussels, Belgium, Sunday morning July 31, and spent
the next two and a half days in and around that city in conferences with
Belgian ministers of government, and farm and trade leaders as well as
our own officials of the American Embassy. A luncheon attended by
scores of Belgian government officials and farm and business representa-
tives gave me opportunity to speak my mind about the kind of trade
policies we felt would best strengthen the free world.

Going on to Bonn, we held similar conferences there; flew to The
Hague in the Netherlands and then drove to Holland's great Interna-
tional Horticulture Show, called the Floriade.

Here I had the chance to make what was probably my most im-
portant and best-publicized speech on our attitude toward trade and
what we hoped would result from the Common Market.

One's surroundings inevitably influence his mood, and I have seldom
found more stimulation in a physical environment than on this occa-
sion. It was a unique experience. Never before had I addressed a group
in such breath-taking surroundings, acres upon acres of flowers and
blooming plants. I could look out of the window of the room from which
I spoke to natural beauty that was simply indescribable.

The Floriade was the first international horticultural show in which
the United States had ever officially participated. And our three and a
half acre exhibit did us proud. It included a typical middle-income U.S.
home surrounded by gardens and landscaped lawns, a supermarket
devoted to the latest in U.S. garden supplies, and a prefabricated plastic
greenhouse. It was estimated that more than five million persons saw
it in the six months the Floriade continued.

Being in this uniquely lovely land recalled vivid memories of my early
visits to the Netherlands, and I told my listeners about them. It had
been thirty-seven years before, when I had been on the mission to Eng-
land, that I had first come to this land of dikes and canals, windmills
and neatly quaint countryside; Fd come over on a little vacation and
I've never forgotten how impressed I was with the beautiful black and
white Holstein cattle I saw in the fields of Holland on that occasion.
My next visit, more than twenty years later, had been totally different.

536 GROSS FIRE

This was a Church welfare mission in 1946, At that time my eyes had
fallen on shocking scenes of ravaged agriculture, bombed cities, shat-
tered bridges. Trains of every vintage were patched together, they could
take us only as far as the first river crossing* There we debarked and
were ferried across the stream to the opposite shore where another train
had been coupled together. In such installments we moved slowly across
the Low Countries into this nation.

It was raining and cold that winter, and Europe was blackened and
sick from the holocaust. There was an air of seeming hopelessness every-
where. Misery and destitution were the aftermath of the nightmarish
horror that had been visited upon this part of Europe in the spring of
1946.

And then, after becoming Secretary of Agriculture, I had returned
once again to Holland just a few years ago, to see that another transfor-
mation had been wrought. The Dutch people had obviously gone about
their task of rebuilding their country with determination and fortitude.

But nothing that I had seen then had prepared me for the glories of
this magnificent Floriade. In an era when science and mechanization
had captured the attention and concern of men throughout the world,
an era in which men found themselves probing the mysteries of time and
space and challenged by the intangibles and unknown as never before,
it was singularly wholesome and deeply reassuring to see demonstrated
so clearly, and with almost divine beauty, the tangible evidences of God's
creation.

I spoke from my heart and it seemed I could feel between all of us in
that room that bond of brotherhood of which Carlyle wrote. Having
made these observations at considerable length, I then spoke in terms of
free world hopes and aspirations toward trade and the strengthening of
the whole free world community.

C T know that your great trading nation is in sympathy with the basic
principles that have led me to advocate a liberal agricultural policy in
the Common Market," I said, "Believe me, we know from our own ex-
perience that it is not easy to act on these principles. But if we are for
a reasonable international division of labor, we must conform to the
ground rules of this policy. I am sure that you earnestly will contemplate
the problems that thus confront our international economic system, and
will help to solve them in a liberal and forward-looking manner."

Leaving Holland, we continued our trip with visits to Paris, France;
Cairo, Egypt; Amman, and old Jerusalem, Jordan; Tel-Aviv, Israel;
Lisbon, Portugal.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 537

The United Arab Republic was facing a continuing struggle with the
problem of limited crop acreage and a rapidly growing population. I
was impressed by the genuine concern of the agricultural leadership to
improve living conditions for the Egyptian farmer.

We had sold the U.A.R. $160,000,000 worth of wheat, rice, feed
grains, tobacco, fats, oils, and poultry for local currency. Over 70
per cent of these funds had been loaned to the government and to pri-
vate enterprises for economic development. That same month of our
trip we signed agreements amounting to an additional $75,000,000.

While in Cairo, I participated in the signing of an agreement with
Syria for the purchase of 250,000 tons of wheat.

Because of three years of drought, Jordan had been receiving a good
deal of U.S. relief help in the form of grain. Jordan's i960 grain harvest
was only one-fourth of normal. To fill the gap, 40,000 tons of U.S.
grain had been approved for export and additional amounts were
under consideration.

In Israel we were supplying about 50 per cent, in terms of value, of
that country's agricultural imports. Israel was approaching self-suffi-
ciency in cotton and dairy products and was developing export markets
for cotton textiles, eggs, poultry, and vegetable oils.

This year, however, we found Israel's cotton crop seriously threatened
by the infestation of a red mite which appeared to be resistant to the
usual insecticides. I offered to help the Israeli government get needed
technical assistance in combating this pest.

As might have been expected, one of the highlights of this part of the
trip was another visit with Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and his
wife. Our last official function in Israel was a fairly small and intimate
dinner given by Ben-Gurion at the King David Hotel in new Jerusalem.
Flora, Beth, and I enjoyed visiting with several members of the Israeli
Cabinet and with U. S. Ambassador Ogden R. Reid and his wife. Ben-
Gurion talked with me at great length about the objectives of his govern-
ment, branching off into various phases of Bible history. Ben-Gurion is
a philosopher and something of a scientist as well as a fine statesman.

The First Lady of Israel, Paula Ben-Gurion, is no less fascinating than
her husband. She is amazingly frank, disturbingly so to some persons,
but Flora and I happen to be rather frank ourselves, so we got along
famously.

The story is told of a state dinner in Jerusalem at which the Prime
Minister became so interested in his conversation that he neglected to
eat. With many a chuckle it is now related that the assembled guests
suddenly pricked up their ears when Mrs. Ben-Gurion called out from

53 8 CROSS FIRE

the other end of the table, "David! Eat your chicken!" Another time,
at a press conference, it is said that the Prime Minister happened to
remark to a U.S. correspondent, "I once met an interesting woman in
your country."

Again Paula happened to be at the far end of the room, and again
she broke in. "Who was she?" (I understand the Ben-Gurions first
met each other in Brooklyn.)

There was something for everybody on this trip; for the newsmen,
a wealth of material for feature stories; for Beth, a ride on a camel in
Egypt and the experience of milking a cow in Holland; and for the three
of us, a weekend in the Holy Land at which we were privileged to
see the Dead Sea, the little town of Bethany where Christ raised Lazarus
from the dead, a visit to Bethlehem, the Mount of Olives and the Garden
of Gethsemane. We went over the route which Christ is believed to have
taken while carrying His cross, and visited the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre within which is believed to be the sepulchre in which Jesus
was entombed and from which He arose. We also made a stop at
Nazareth, visiting the home where it is said Mary and Joseph lived and
where he had his carpenter shop. We stopped at Kar Kanna, the town
of Cana, where Jesus performed His first miracle. We drove to the Sea
of Galilee, visited the old synagogue at Capernaum where Jesus
preached, the Mount on which He gave the Beatitudes, the place where
He fed the five thousand, and the Mount of Transfiguration, where
Christ took Peter, James, and John when he was visited by Moses and
Elijah.

Though the trip had been inspiring and, it seemed, successful, we
were glad to head home again. There were two more trips to make, and
before that, a principle or two to defend.

Within a week after returning from abroad, I had a talk with the
Vice President regarding the coming campaign. This occurred after a
buffet dinner honoring the President and Mrs. Eisenhower at the Statler
Hotel. In speaking with Nixon, I indicated as tactfully as I knew how
that while I would obviously not be drawing close to him, I would be as
helpful as I could. Let's face it. The Vice President was not a man who
was easy to get close to; but he was, and is, a shrewd and effective
politician, one who, I must repeat, I felt sure would make a far better
President than Senator Kennedy.

He had raised a barrier between us just after the Republican Con-
vention when he reportedly said at his "farm seminar" that I was a
"liability" in some areas, "though not in all." The Chicago Sun-Times

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 539

quoted a so-called top Nixon strategist as saying: "We hope he [Benson]
doesn't campaign in the Midwest. We don't want him there. I think
where he is would be a good place." The "place" he referred to was
Europe.

President Eisenhower left no doubt that his assessment contrasted
sharply with that of the Nixon camp. In his news conference of August
io, the President was asked by William McGaffin of the Chicago Daily
News, "Mr. President, do you regret having kept Ezra Benson on as
Secretary of Agriculture in view of the unresolved farm problem that
is giving Mr. Nixon such a hard time in his campaign?"

And the President replied, "Ezra Benson has, to my mind, been very
honest and forthright and courageous in trying to get enacted into legis-
lation plans and programs that I think are correct. And, therefore, for
me to regret that he has been working would be almost a betrayal of my
own views in this matter. I think we must find ways to give greater
freedom to the farmer and make his whole business more responsive to
market, rather than just to political considerations."

If I were to choose an epitaph for the work as Secretary of Agricul-
ture, surely I would look no farther than to some of the extravagantly
kind expressions of my friend in the White House. In his warmhearted
way, the President never failed to come to my defense any time he
thought I needed it. Again that month, during his news conference of
August 24, at a time when speculation about my being definitely un-
wanted in the campaign had spread widely, he took up the cudgels.
Edward T. Folliard, correspondent of the Washington Post, asked: "Mr.
President, you just said that the farm problem might be an issue, was
likely to be an issue. Over the weekend, a statement was made that the
Administration, including Mr. Nixon and Mr. Benson, had brought
disaster to the farmers. There are usually two sides to these questions,
Would you care to comment on that, sir?"

The President: "We are operating under laws, some of them go
back, way back into the late thirties. The laws have never been reformed.
We have struggled for eight years to get real reform in the farm laws
with a basic purpose of making the farm production more nearly re-
sponsive to the demand. And we have tried to increase world demand,
or at least world consumption, through P.L. 480, by expanding markets,
commercial markets. That is one of the reasons that Secretary Benson
has traveled so much and is still traveling— to produce better markets.
But to say that Mr. Benson and the Administration has brought this
problem— this farm problem into its acute stage, whether you call it

540 GROSS FIRE

disastrous or not, is just to my mind a distortion that is used for political
purposes, and nothing else."

Then Edward V. Koterba of United Features asked: "Mr. President,
in a follow-up to Eddie Folliard's question, a Midwestern poll shows an
apparent resurgence of strong support for the Republicans across the
Farm Belt. Sir, would you say this indicated a renewed confidence for
Ezra Benson, who one Republican referred to last week as a scapegoat
for all the farmers' troubles? And could you at this time, sir, give us
your judgment on this man who has served as your Secretary of Agri-
culture for seven and a half years?"

The President: "Well, I think I did that a couple of weeks ago,
when I said that I have never known a man who was more honest,
more dedicated, and more informed in his particular work. He is, more-
over, a courageous man in presenting the views of the Administration,
and with his work I have not only had the greatest sympathy, but
wherever I could possibly find a way to do it, I have supported exactly
what he has been trying to do.

"Now, I don't know about anything — anything about the effects in
the Farm Belt at this moment, for the simple reason I haven't had any
recent reports of opinion there. I do know this: In the long run, people
respect honesty and courage and selflessness in the governmental service.
And I don't believe that any of us should be so free as to crucify Secre-
tary Benson. I think he has done a wonderful service,"

The beginning of the campaign went well for the Republicans. Fol-
lowing the conventions, Kennedy and Johnson got the Congress back in
session in the hope of slapping through a number of bills which the
President would either have to accept against his will or veto. A series of
vetoes would enable the team of Kennedy and Johnson to go to the
country claiming that Eisenhower was an obstructionist and that the
way for the United States "to get moving again" was to elect a Demo-
cratic administration. At first, their strategy apparently contemplated
passage of a long-term farm program. After a very few days the strategy
changed and the Democratic leaders would gladly have settled for an
emergency or crash wheat bill.

Such a measure had been proposed by Congressman Cooley just be-
fore the Congress adjourned for the conventions. Cooley's bill, a really
drastic one, offered farmers a payment in kind of 60 per cent of their
normal wheat yield on condition that they took all of their wheat land
out of production in 1961. No question about it, this bill would have
cut very deeply into the wheat surplus, but it would also have brought

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 54I

chaos to many rural communities in which the economy depends in no
small way on the sale of supplies, equipment and labor to wheat pro-
ducers.

After a few weeks of confused inaction, Kennedy and Johnson angrily
sought ways of bringing the session to a halfway graceful close, even
though nothing had been accomplished, while the Republicans led by
Dick Nixon gleefully pursued every possible ruse to prolong what had
become a painful interlude indeed for Senator Kennedy.

Early in September while the Vice President recuperated from a knee
injury in Walter Reed Army Hospital, we had a thirty-minute telephone
discussion of the campaign, my participation in it and the politics and
economics of the farm problem. After assuring me that he would not
espouse a farm program which ignored reliance on competitive markets
and competitive prices, Dick expressed interest in my doing work wher-
ever possible and especially in the South, where he thought we had a
good chance of winning several states.

"In addition to agriculture," he said, "Fd like you to discuss problems
of foreign trade, international relations, the principles of a sound econ-
omy. You might also get into Federal-state relationships and the dangers
of a too centralized government."

I mentioned that I had invitations to make many addresses in the
South, including Florida and Texas. "There are also a number of in-
vitations from the Far West, the Mountain States, and the Midwest,"
I said. "Perhaps the best thing would be for me to talk with Thruston
[Senator Morton, Republican National Chairman] as to where I could
be used to the best advantage."

Then I mentioned that the President and Secretary Herter had asked
me to make two further trade trips, and that one, a trip to South
America, was tentatively scheduled for October. Nixon said that such
a trip could be used to the advantage of the Republican ticket, because
it was a means of promoting better international relations and broaden-
ing our markets.

In conclusion, I said, once more as tactfully as I knew how, that I
hoped he would not go off on any grandiose farm scheme which could
not be defended as economically sound. I also urged that, if elected, he
select a solid man from the Midwest as his Secretary of Agriculture.
"Don't overlook Marvin McLain," I suggested.

It was a polite conversation. There was undeniably a cleavage be-
tween us, try as we would to bridge it.

542 CROSS FIRE

The Vice President embarked on a campaign of "sweetness and
light/ 5 apparently attempting thereby to destroy the image of himself
as a ruthless political opportunist with an "instinct for the jugular,"
which the Democrats and some of the press had for ten years and more
labored to create. He did not discard this cream puff campaigning until
after the disastrous first TV debate. He seemed to think he could be,
politically speaking, all things to all men. This led him to appear to be
disavowing the Administration's farm program with his left hand while
at the same time supporting it with his right. This was poor strategy, I
was convinced, because Kennedy and the Democrats had become ex-
tremely vulnerable on their agricultural proposals.

In this September stage of the campaign, the Vice President also
failed to enlist the all-out support of the Republican organization. Thrus-
ton Morton came to my office in mid-month, somewhat discouraged
and frustrated because he had to a large degree been bypassed by the
Nixon forces. Much of the organizational work he had done preliminary
to the campaign had been ignored. When he remarked on the Vice
President's need for technical help, I commented, "Well, he certainly
has not made much of an effort to arrange liaison with my office — and
it's bound to show up when he talks about specific farm commodities.

"His speeches and statements on agriculture could be strengthened.
Don Paarlberg could give him all the technical help he needs. So could
True Morse, Marvin McLain, or Martin Sorkin."

Senator Morton said he would get in touch with the Vice President
on this matter, and in ensuing weeks there was a little better liaison be-
tween some of his lieutenants and my office.

Shortly after this, however, I arrived at a decision not to make any
real campaign speeches and to cancel all the tentative commitments I
had entertained to speak on political platforms. It came about in this
way.

A September issue of the U.S. News & World Report carried a story
that Senator Kennedy would speak in the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City
and be introduced by one of the Council of the Twelve of the Mormon
Church.

Shortly, I had a phone call from Ab Herman, campaign director for
the Republican National Committee — "Would you introduce the Vice
President when he speaks in Salt Lake City on October 10? Could you
arrange for him to speak at the Tabernacle?"

"If Kennedy is to speak at the Tabernacle and be introduced by one
of the Council, then certainly the Vice President should also," I replied.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 543

Nixon, I learned, was contemplating dividing his time on October 10
among Denver, Grand Junction, and Salt Lake City. "Well, I think he
should certainly make every effort to give an evening speech at the
Tabernacle," I remarked. "If that's out, then a noon hour talk at the
Tabernacle. And he surely should be introduced by a high official of
the Church, if Kennedy is."

It bothered me, however, that a Church official might be actively
participating in this manner at this political meeting. So I telephoned
President McKay. He assured me that no member of the Twelve would
introduce Kennedy; as a government official, however, I was in a differ-
ent position. In reply, I said there was no compelling desire on my part
to introduce the Vice President; moreover, I felt strongly that we must
be careful in using Church officials to tip the political scales.

"That coincides precisely with my own sentiments," President McKay
replied. "Now, mind you, I fully recognize your unique position, and
you may do as you think best, but I've been wondering if it might not
be best for you to hold your own campaign activity to a minimum."

The next day Fred Seaton telephoned from Milwaukee, at Nixon's
request. "It would please Dick very much," Fred said, "if you could
introduce him in Salt Lake City on October 10." The Vice President
planned to speak at the Tabernacle during the noon hour.

I told Fred that Kennedy would not be introduced by any member
of the Twelve. "I think it would be unwise, therefore, for me to intro-
duce the Vice President. Besides, my present plans are to leave Salt Lake
on October 9. My suggestion is that Senator Bennett introduce Mr.
Nixon." (Senator Wallace F. Bennett was the senior Senator from Utah.)

That was the day I definitely decided not to campaign extensively.
The Vice President's wavering on the farm question, his apparent break-
ing to some extent with the Eisenhower program, would have made it
difficult for me to support him enthusiastically in partisan political meet-
ings. Moreover, I couldn't help feeling that he had been somewhat un-
fair in implying as he had in various statements that we had been
in conflict on farm policy since 1955. I couldn't recall any time in our
conferences and Cabinet meetings when he had really spoken out
against the Eisenhower farm program — even in recent months, much
less as long ago as 1955.

Obviously, too, the Vice President did not want me to campaign in
the Midwest. Though I was sure he was wrong in his appraisal of farm
sentiment in that region, it was up to him to call the shots.

Entirely apart from these considerations, however, my views on agri-
culture had already been quite efficiently expressed and fairly well

544 CROSS FIRE

known over the past seven and a half years, I was soon planning to go
back to full time Church work, and I hoped to be able to take that up
again without having to be the cause of too much criticism and misun-
derstanding that might arise during this particular vigorous partisan
campaign.

No sooner had I reached this decision than I learned that the First
Presidency and the Twelve had that very day unanimously recom-
mended a course fully in line with my own sentiments. In view of these
facts and the urging of President Eisenhower and Secretary of State
Herter that I make the trip to South America, I took a firm decision to
cancel all scheduled appearances at strictly political meetings, to accept
invitations to make a few major non-political speeches, and to schedule
the South American trip for the period October 20 to November 3.

Though it was better this way, there was enough of the old fire horse
in me to make me want to respond to the political alarm bell. Perhaps
that was why, the day before I left, I sent this letter:

October 19, i960

PERSONAL

Dear Dick:

I attach herewith blind copies of letters I have sent today to the President
and Thruston Morton. You know, of course, that they are written in an ef-
fort to be helpful to you and the Republican ticket.

I feel the time has come for you to hit hard and be tough but be sure
you are right. You need to keep emphasizing the basic differences between
your philosophy and your opponent's and by letting the American people
know there is a real choice. You need to keep pointing out the Democratic
record when Truman was President and our record since. People have short
memories. . . .

I can't emphasize too much the need to keep constantly on the offensive
in the field of agriculture. In that area is the opponent most vulnerable.
You might well quote Secretary Wallace as Thruston Morton has done,
particularly his statement that the Kennedy program would mean more
restrictions on agriculture "than most communist countries."

Best wishes for success.

Sincerely,
Ezra
The Vice President
United States Senate

Meantime I was still trying to write finis to further political induce-
ments myself.

Shortly before the conventions, Fred E. Schluter suggested that I stand
for the governorship in the Utah elections. Schluter, an able political
analyst who had directed several campaigns, felt I could win in Utah,

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 545

even starting at that late date. I discouraged him, saying I wanted to
return to full participation in the work of the Council of the Twelve.

Toward the end of the summer I addressed the annual Agriculture-
Business meeting of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce in Chicago.
About half the audience of over 600 were farmers. After the meeting I
greeted members of the audience until my hand, wrist, and arm ached.
The Chicago Tribune the next day, said: "Benson was visibly moved
when he received a rousing ovation from the 600 farmers and business-
men in the grand ballroom of the Sherman at the end of his speech."

Visibly moved! I was almost overwhelmed.

The Associated Press on October 5 carried this story:

Salt Lake City (AP) — Mimeographed letters urging a write-in campaign
to elect Agriculture Secretary Benson Governor of Utah turned up on autos
parked at the University of Utah last night.

The letter signed by a "Committee for Benson for Governor" said the
Secretary was completely unaware at this writing of any efforts to elect him
to office.

Benson, now in Salt Lake, could not be reached for comment.

After consulting with some of the Republican leaders in the State and
also with President David O. McKay and indicating my desire to
squelch this effort, I prepared a statement. Before I could release it, I
had a call from a representative of the Committee for Benson for
Governor urging me to delay a decision until they had an opportunity
to provide me with some of the letters which indicated the favorable
response from Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.

However, I decided to go ahead anyway and the following was re-
leased to the press:

The "Benson for Governor" letter, proposing a write-in of my name on
the November election ballot, came as a complete surprise to me.

I did not initiate it, nor was I informed that such a letter was to be writ-
ten. Although grateful for expressions of confidence, I do not support it in
any way.

I am not seeking the office of Governor of this State, and I would not be
in a position to become a candidate even if I so desired, which I do not.
After serving eight years in the cabinet of President Eisenhower, I feel that
I have, for the time being at least, filled my political obligation, and starting
early next year I shall devote my full time to my Church duties.

As a lifelong conservative Republican, I am going to support the Republi-
can tickets, both national and State. I strongly urge any Utahans who might
have supported me as a gubernational candidate not to write my name on
the ballot and thereby waste their vote, but to give their full support to my
good friend and fellow Republican George D. Clyde. Governor Clyde is

546 GROSS FIRE

a man of high moral character and integrity who has made an outstanding
record in his first term in office. I am convinced that Utah's best interests
will be served if he is reelected for another four years.

Immediately after issuing this statement I found a letter in my box at
the Hotel Utah. (Although it was dated October 7, I received it
October 6.)

The Honorable Ezra Taft Benson

Hotel Utah

Salt Lake City, Utah

October 7, i960

Dear Sir,

We of the Committee are appealing to you, to allow the citizens of our
great state adequate time to express themselves, regarding your candidacy
for Governor.

The response at this writing has been spontaneous, energetic and deeply
sincere. This committee action is also sincere and in the highest interests of
the State of Utah.

Citizens from all walks of life, both political parties, regardless of affilia-
tions, respect your abilities, integrity, and willingness to fight for your con-
victions and principles. Your ability to serve publicly without bias or preju-
dice is recognized throughout the world.

Our goals are not those of confusion or political ambition: only sincere
hopes of obtaining strong leadership for this office.

We feel the selection of proper leadership is far more important than
any other decision at this time. We sincerely urge you to allow the indi-
vidual citizen of Utah to make this decision.

Please hold your decision in abeyance until this expression has been made.
These are critical times for our system of free enterprise.

Your consideration in this matter will be deeply appreciated.

Respectfully,

Committee for Benson for Governor

and the following:

Vida Fox Clawson
Eldon Romney
Byron McLeese
Dixie Clark

cc: Deseret News

Salt Lake Tribune

Joseph Klein
R. C. Walgren
Afton Wright
R. L. Herscher

May F. Bennett
S. E. Cameron
Eldon Young
Mrs. O. Richardson

AND MANY, MANY OTHERS

I had hoped my statement just given out would settle the matter. It

did.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 547

Our two-week's tour of the five South American countries began. As
on an earlier visit five years before, though that was to different coun-
tries, I thought the potential of Latin America stood out in every na-
tion. Here is a region that will surely play an increasingly important
role in world affairs. Underdeveloped as it now is, and with sharp con-
trasts between poverty and wealth, illiteracy and education, sickness
and health, liabilities and assets, Latin America impresses me as a kind
of raw-boned, undernourished, gangling adolescent certain to grow up
to be an immensely powerful, capable and active adult.

In all five countries I met with the President of the nation, members
of the Cabinet, especially the Ministers of Agriculture, Foreign Affairs,
Economy and Trade, and our own ambassadors and embassy officials.
As always, we got in some visits to talk with farmers and ranchers.

In Brazil our first stop was the magnificent new, man-made capital
city, Brazilia. This modernistic symphony in steel and stone, literally
cut out of the jungle, symbolizes the Brazilians' pride in their nation's
culture and skills, and testifies to their abiding faith in the future. Rio
de Janeiro, an oceanside jewel, and Sao Paulo, described as the fastest-
growing city in the world, also throb with strength and vitality.

I reminded the Brazilians of the strong economic relationship existing
between our two countries, 1

Brazil was striving to get away from its historical dependence on one
crop. Initially, that one crop was rubber; today it is coffee; tomorrow
its agriculture, hopefully, will be more diversified. Certainly, this coun-
try has the soils, the climate, and the acreage to become one of the great
agricultural nations of the earth. In industry, too, every indication points
to an increasingly rapid development. Brazil, in short, is an awakening
giant.

From Brazil, the largest nation in South America, we flew to Uruguay,
the smallest, but socially one of the most advanced. Here I was capti-
vated particularly by the vigor of the government officials, especially
the then Council President, Benito Nardone. A farm leader with a
strong rural following, he is staunchly anti-Communist and pro-United
States. His was a solidly free-enterprise administration.

Argentina was in the throes of a rebirth, and what most impressed
all of us was the strength with which freedom's flame burned, now that

iln 1959, the U.S. imported over $600,000,000 worth of Brazilian goods, two-thirds
of it coffee. Brazil, in turn, bought from us about $400,000,000 worth of manufac-
tured products and some agricultural products, mostly wheat. I referred to our
$2,500,000,000 in public and private investments and loans in Brazil, and our willing-
ness to devote additional large resources to the cause of further economic and social
development.

548 GROSS FIRE

the Per6n dictatorship had been repudiated. The people of the United
States, I fear, have not fully understood what a valuable asset Argentina's
freedom is to all the world.

During the decade of Per6n dictatorship, agriculture had been neg-
lected in this great country in favor of industrial development. But while
agriculture stagnated, industry failed to prosper in a totalitarian atmos-
phere.

It is no easy task to make the economic adjustment from a severely
restricted and controlled economy to one that is relatively free, but that
is what the Argentinians were doing. President Arturo Frondizi, who
took office in 1958, had been forced to undertake an austerity program
to stabilize the economy, but his people were supporting him.

Chile and Peru are both striving against heavy obstacles to raise the
levels of living of their peoples. Chile, especially, is a brave land beset
with difficulties that would stagger the imagination of most of us. Plagued
by natural catastrophes, and dependent upon world demand and price
for copper and nitrates, Chile's economy is always in a hazardous posi-
tion.

Though the government under President Jorge Alessandri Rodriguez
was working mightily to halt the inflationary spiral, the cost of living
remained extremely high. Interest rates had soared to the astounding
rate of 28 per cent per annum.

In Peru where the major farm products are cotton, sugar and coffee,
the government officials were rather concerned about our cotton sub-
sidy program, and I spent some time clarifying our position. The poverty
of many Peruvians and the wide gap separating rich and poor re-
emphasized in all our minds the great need for a sound social develop-
ment program to go along with economic development.

These countries are moving ahead in agriculture by applying new
technology, and modern concepts of production and marketing. They
have a long way to go; but they know it and that in itself is a hopeful
sign. They are studying our methods because they have seen what we
have been able to do in agriculture and they want to achieve similar
results in efficiency and productivity.

The Americas and Americans, north and south, are not ready to
compromise their hopes and aspirations by defaulting to defeatism,
Castro-ism, and communism, even though elements of these philosophies
are often waiting to move in with their false promises, lying propaganda,
and devious plots. In South America, as elsewhere, communism exploits
poverty, the hardships of inflation, uncertainty and compromise of prin-
ciple. The Communists will be able to move from the wings to the center

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 549

of the stage only if an awakened leadership of the Americas goes back to
sleep or drifts off the course of moral principle.

As of now, I believe there are stronger advocates for freedom's cause
in Latin America than anywhere else I have traveled outside of our own
shores. The great nations of this hemisphere were a triumph over
tyranny. Freedom was not born in a day and neither were the Americas.
That heritage will not be lightly lost.

Latin America is flexing its muscles, preparing for a future of greater
enterprise, greater freedom, and increasing leadership among the na-
tions of the world. It is on the move.

The ig6o Elections

On November 8, Election Day, I had a delightful visit with the Presi-
dent during which I made a verbal report on the South American trip.
After the discussion of South America and our relations with that con-
tinent, we explored a little my plans for my final trade and good-will
trip, one to the Far East, on which I would embark the next night.

On Election Night, I went with members of the family to the Shera-
ton-Park Hotel to look in on the returns. Bob Anderson, Fritz Mueller,
Jim Mitchell, and Arthur Flemming were among the large crowd there.
After a while I joined the President and Henry Cabot Lodge for a brief
visit, in Lodge's suite. Then we all went to the big hall, where the Presi-
dent spoke informally. After watching the returns on the huge board
for about an hour, the Bensons went home. At this point it looked like a
real landslide for Kennedy and the Democrats.

But then as returns from the West began to come in and the race
tightened in the several states of the Midwest, the picture changed. The
family and I watched television until four in the morning. Even then,
the whole thing was in doubt.

Next day the President called a special off-the-record Cabinet meet-
ing at 1 1 : 30. We met for about an hour and a quarter. It had become
rather clear by then that we had lost, though the popular vote margin
was thin as a whisker. The President rather grimly led a discussion of
how best to make an orderly turnover of our responsibilities. He ap-
pointed General Persons to coordinate this effort.

In the election, a plurality of the 68,000,000 voters had selected
Senator John Fitzgerald Kennedy to be the thirty-fourth natural-born
citizen to serve as President of the United States. The difference in the
popular vote between winner and loser was less than one ballot per
precinct in the United States.

550 CROSS FIRE

While I was naturally disappointed that Vice President Nixon was
not elected, the closeness of the popular vote was heartening. It en-
couraged the Republican Party for the future. It demonstrated the exist-
ence of a strong bulwark of support in the country for Republican
principles.

My own interpretation of the election is that the Vice President was
defeated by a combination of several factors, the most important of
which was that he began fighting for principle too late* The bland phase
of the campaign, which lasted until after the first television debate, was
decisive. This enabled Senator Kennedy to take the offensive and keep
it throughout most of the campaign. And though, in the closing weeks,
the Vice President, now fully aroused, really began to fight for the
causes Republicans believe in, and was fast closing the gap, he ran out
of time. It might be academic to say the result would have been differ-
ent had the race gone a week longer, or if Nixon had started fighting a
week earlier, but I believe in this case it is true.

My mail brought me the following pertinent editorial from the Em-
poria Gazette of November 9. At the bottom these words were scrawled,
"From an old admirer, W.L.W." ( W. L. White)

HOW AND WHY?

How did we lose it? Richard Nixon is an able and dedicated man, and
is probably the best campaigner that the Republican Party has produced
in this generation. For the most part he fought bravely, and he fought
well. But for a period he was not brave enough, and he lost by a hair
because, on a few crucial points, he was trapped into opportunism.

The original Republican platform as drafted by him was a fighting docu-
ment which, properly handled, could have carried him through to victory
... Its contrasts with the Marxish-Keynsian document saddled on the
Democrats by the Kennedy forces are extreme, and they could have been
dramatic. Had Mr. Nixon chosen Barry Goldwater as a running mate the
pair of them pounding away in a needed crusade of political and economic
education, could have made it a dynamic creed for conservatives. Ezra
Benson could have helped here.

Yet in this period it seemed that, if Mr. Nixon was not ashamed of this
creed, at least he was fearful of it. Hence Ezra Benson was hidden away,
as though he were a bad smell. Hence the decision to avoid domestic
issues and try to base the campaign on foreign affairs, with the help of
Henry Cabot Lodge. Hence the previous weeks wasted fiddling about,
debating with John Kennedy on Quemoy and Matsu, while in popularity
polls the Nixon prestige sunk steadily . . .

Was it all this bad? Of course not— and in the closing weeks it rose to
the magnificent. As Mr. Nixon sunk lower in the polls, the platform was
rediscovered, and finally the real fight began. The creed of that platform

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 55I

was preached, both by Richard Nixon and President Eisenhower, with
earnestness, with conviction, and with enormous effect. Almost instantly
the polls showed that the Kennedy rise had been stopped, and a Nixon
rise began: the voters were responding. But although in the final 10 days
it rose with increasing velocity, too much time had previously been wasted
in delicately arranging all those seemingly needful compromises. So by
the morning of Nov. 8th it was three-tenths of one percent too late.

The moral? If you deeply believe in something (as Mr. Nixon does) don't
let anyone frighten you into being ashamed of it.

W.L.W.

With most of what White said in this editorial I concurred. That the
farmer revolt hoped for by the Democrats did not occur is undeniable.
As columnist Roscoe Drummond put it, "The Benson revolt never took
place." The Wyoming State Tribune of Cheyenne said: This was "the
revolt that wasn't there." With the exception of Minnesota and Missouri,
the farm states wound up solidly and firmly in the Nixon column — and
despite heavy Democratic majorities in Chicago, the rural vote almost
pulled it out for him in Illinois. In Minnesota and Missouri, it was
again the metropolitan areas of Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth, Kansas
City, and St. Louis that provided the victory margin for the Democrats.

Some have attempted to explain the extraordinarily heavy rural vote
for the Republicans on the basis of the religious issue. But how then do
you explain the defeat of Governor Orville Freeman in Minnesota? of
Governor George Docking in Kansas? of Governor Ralph Herseth of
South Dakota? and Governor Herschel Loveless of Iowa, who was bid-
ding for the Senate? All of these men were Protestant Democrats, pro-
ponents of the Kennedy farm proposals and identified as bitter opponents
of the Adrninistration's farm program — and all were defeated. The one
Democratic governor to survive was Wisconsin's Gaylord A. Nelson who
narrowly won re-election. Moreover, Protestant Democratic Governor
Loveless who had been highly publicized as the leading farm adviser to
Kennedy and a possible Vice Presidential nominee, lost his Senate race
to a Catholic Republican attorney, Jack R. Miller of Sioux City.

All, or nearly all, of the Democratic members of the House of Repre-
sentatives who lost their seats to Republicans were identified as substan-
tial opponents of our farm policies. As columnist Drummond put it, "Al-
most across the board it was the anti-Benson Congressmen who lost. In
Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Ohio, the only Democratic Congress-
men defeated were those who had opposed Benson's policies on every
key vote."

Would it have made any material difference if I had campaigned as

55$ GROSS FIRE

in 1954, 1956, and 1958? Who can say? We won practically everything
in the heart of the Farm Belt anyway. I made one political speech (in
Richmond, Virginia, in September) three other speeches to non-political
audiences and held several news conferences, and that was all I pointed
out that Senator Kennedy had proposed an incredible program that
would, if adopted, put our farm people under the tightest controls ever
seen in this country. I quoted former Secretary Henry A. Wallace who
said:

"I've analyzed the Kennedy program as carefully as possible and it
boils down to a rehash of the proposals put forward by the left wing of
the Farmers Union in 1933.

"Those proposals were so fantastic and impossible of attainment with-
out tight licensing and controls that Franklin D. Roosevelt was furious
at the men backing them.

"I can't believe that anyone with any sense would try to put over a
program such as Mr, Kennedy's,"

In the USDA career economists analyzed the Kennedy proposals very
carefully. No question about it : if this program were put into effect, all
phases of agriculture would be strapped into a strait jacket. Producers
of livestock, milk, poultry, fruits and vegetables, food and feed grains,
tobacco, cotton — all would receive marketing quotas expressed in bushels,
barrels, and bales. Every commodity would be included and it would be
illegal to market more than the amount authorized by a ubiquitous gov-
ernment agency. A host of Federal inspectors would be breathing down
farmers' necks.

Under these truly absurd proposals hardly any farm product could
move into export without a large subsidy; and our own tariff walls would
have to be raised sky-high to keep out foreign farm products.

These proposals were not only fantastic, they were a nightmare — the
worst farm program, bar none, that I have ever heard advocated by any
responsible figure in this country. They constituted a one-way ticket to
disaster for U.S. agriculture, and that is precisely what I said in the few
speeches and interviews I gave,

Three States — Illinois, Minnesota, and Missouri — changed from the
Democratic to the Republican column would have won the Presidency
for Richard Nixon, Maybe a little extra push in the farm regions could
have produced that change.

Nixon allowed himself to be stampeded by a small, noisy minority of
Democratic propagandists in the Midwest. He misread the political signs,
shrewd and experienced as he was, I was reminded of this thought of
Edmund Burke;

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 553

"Because half-a-dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring
with their importunate chink, whilst thousands of great cattle, reposed be-
neath the shadow of the British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray do
not imagine that those who make the noise are the only inhabitants of the
field; that of course they are many in number, or that, after all, they are
other than the little shrivelled, meagre, hopping, though loud and trouble-
some, insects of the hour."

Nixon blundered in failing to tear into the Kennedy farm program
with both fists. It was, by all odds, the weakest link in Kennedy's armor
and the Senator from Massachusetts soon learned that fact. He became
mighty uncomfortable with the bill of goods his own advisers had sold
him. All through October he wanted nothing less than to talk farm
policy.

But Nixon, given this open opportunity, delayed. We had tried to
keep him informed, but he, too, like Kennedy, feared the farm issue.
Yet this issue was like a loose football in an open field — ready to be
picked up and turned into the decisive play of the game.

Most farmers voted their opposition to the Kennedy farm proposals. 2
Further exposure of the wild effects of such schemes might, and I believe
would, have increased Republican majorities in rural areas. In addition,
many consumers in cities might have revolted against the Democrats on
this one issue alone had they understood that it meant planned scarcity
and high food prices. For Republicans, it was tragic that Nixon would
not see in October what Kennedy knew in October.

This error in judgment cannot be ascribed only to Nixon. He made
many other campaign strategy decisions, correctly and with remarkable
political acumen.

Successful leadership often depends on an informed and forthright
staff. Some farm advisers of the Vice President by their own admission
were not knowledgeable in depth on agriculture. Anyone who has done
much in farm policy becomes controversial so there is a temptation po-

2 A survey of the vote in the farm counties (counties in which more than 50 per
cent of the population was classified as rural-farm in the 1950 census) of 8 Mid-
western states showed a majority of the vote going Republican. These states and the
average farm county Republican vote were:

% Republican

Iowa

58.8

Kansas

65.6

Michigan

68.1

Minnesota

52.2

Nebraska

64.6

North Dakota

56.1

South Dakota

60.2

Wisconsin

56.7

cr^ CROSS FIRE

litically to use those who have done little or nothing. But the apparent
initial gain is demolished by the end result.

Dick Nixon was a qualified, attractive candidate. He was a hard-
working, successful Vice President. He would likely have been a forceful
and effective President.

The Republicans, I believe, could have won with Nixon — and I be-
lieve they almost certainly would have won with Rockefeller.

There are several very plausible reasons for believing this.

First, the campaign hinged more on personalities than on deep-seated
issues. The young, vigorous, and handsome Senator from Massachusetts
projected himself better than the Vice President, at least on television.
I do not believe he would have been able to achieve this advantage
against Governor Rockefeller.

Second, over the years the Democrats had succeeded in projecting an
image of Richard Nixon as a somewhat unscrupulous opportunist, a man
without principle. A sizable number of voters, most of them for reasons
which they could not articulate, just did not like the Vice President.
Rockefeller, a new and attractive face, would not have confronted this
disadvantage.

Third, Nixon was handicapped, in a sense, by his obvious determina-
tion to defend every phase of the Eisenhower Administration. By seem-
ingly refusing to speak openly in some matters, he may have given the
impression to at least some voters that he was not wholly sincere.
Rockefeller would not have carried such a handicap.

It is almost inconceivable, finally, that Senator Kennedy, campaign-
ing against Governor Rockefeller, would have achieved the success he
did in the East. Kennedy portrayed Nixon as anti-labor and anti-prog-
ress; he would not even have attempted to do this to the same degree, if
at all, had Rockefeller been his opponent.

We Republicans missed too many opportunities. That, to me, is the
story of our defeat in i960.

Saddened as we all were, there was some slight personal satisfaction in
the remark of a Wednesday morning political quarterback, "Ezra," he
said, "you came out of the elections smelling like a rose."

Like a rose, perhaps, but not in all quarters. Sherman Adams later
wrote that I was "immune to the urgencies of party politics." I was
hardly immune, given a lifetime as a Republican, and eight years of tell-
ing the better side of the party's story wherever and whenever I could.
But I didn't become panicky when two or three politicians raised their
voices. I tried to be guided by ideas, not political expediency, by a pro-
gram, not by straws in the winds that blow around Washington. Poli-

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 555

ticians did not scare me. The only ax I had to grind was the one put in
my hands by the President of the United States.

Two statements reportedly made after the election I found equally
interesting but for different reasons. One was by former President Tru-
man, who was quoted as saying, "I don't care what happens to the farm-
ers now. They all voted the Republican ticket." That was an appalling
statement.

The other, attributed to President-elect Kennedy, was to the effect
that the morning after the election, Senator Kennedy looked at the
map of the United States and found that the Midwest, the Great Plains,
and all the farming regions outside of the South had voted against him.

"That makes one Cabinet appointment easy," the account goes. "Ezra
Taft Benson as Secretary of Agriculture. The fanners seem to want him
back, so they can have him."

That one, somehow, was rather satisfying.

44

A Last Trade Trip

At a few minutes after midnight, November 10, I headed for Tokyo.
Like most Americans, I had wondered just what was back of the
Japanese protests against President Eisenhower's proposed visit to the
islands — protests so vigorous they had led to cancellation of the visit.
Ambassador Douglas MacArthur II thoroughly briefed us on the Japa-
nese situation.

The Communists, he said, were itching to get their hands on the ex-
cellent Japanese industrial plant. They rightly regarded Japan as the
keystone of free world deterrence against the further spread of commu-
nism in the Orient.

"The Communist insurrection in Japan," MacArthur said, "is a real
threat, but it can only be countered by forces within Japan. Our policy
must be to continue to aid Japan, to help her to grow and prosper, to
help her people know the value of freedom, so that they cannot be
turned against us later on."

Japan, he said, is aiding other countries in free Asia; she is a strong,
positive force.

"What has been the net effect of the left-wing uprising last spring?" I
asked. "Does this indicate that communism is growing in influence
here?"

"On balance, I think the results are in our favor," MacArthur replied.
"The great majority of the people were passive about political issues be-
fore the uprising. But when they read about, and still more when they
saw, the violence of the minority, they awakened for the first time to
what is at stake."
The old Japanese way of life, he pointed out, was wiped out when

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 557

Japan lost the war. As one Japanese put it to him, "You have destroyed
the past but have preached no loyalty to the new Japanese state."

Most of the intellectuals preferred to turn their backs on world prob-
lems, leaving the leftists an opportunity to become the only spokesmen.
"That has been sharply altered since the May and June riots/ 5 Mac-
Arthur said. "The press, which had been leaning to the left, has now
swung to the right."

After this, I met with Goro Watanabe, the Administrative Vice
Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. Mr. Watanabe believed Japanese
wheat consumption would grow as income increased; the school children
especially liked wheat products. Our efforts to introduce them to wheat
evidently had been successful.

We had meetings also with members of the International Trade and
Industry Ministry, and with representatives of the Japanese soap, leather,
fats and oils, baking, milling, and cotton spinning industries.

Kichihei Hara, chairman of the Japan Cotton Spinners Association,
a most gracious person like all his compatriots, told me that Communist
China was operating 10,000,000 spinners three shifts a day and produc-
ing cotton products with which Japan cannot compete. He wanted to
know if we might make cotton available to them at a reduced price, for
sale only in the Asian market, and I told him we would give the matter
consideration.

Next morning we left Japan for Formosa. This country has made fabu-
lous progress in recent years. Yet it is typical of the East. We visited a
land reform exhibit which graphically portrayed the shift away from
tenancy to owner-operatorship. Where formerly 43 per cent of the land
had been cultivated by tenants, now only 14 per cent fell into this cate-
gory. Tenants had become owners, their standard of living had im-
proved, and income was rising. A Formosan guide told us, "When in-
come increased, the first thing Chinese women wanted was a sewing
machine. The men wanted radios." Somehow, that seemed pretty typical
of men and women the world over.

One of the most hopeful indications of progress was the increasing
number of farm children in Formosa who were going on to higher edu-
cation.

Two consecutive visits were typical of the contrast in much of the
Orient. The first took us to a farm where we were met by the entire
family, including the farmer's two granddaughters who belonged to a
4-H Club. The home, though primitive, seemed in good order. With in-
terest, I noted that the family slept on wooden-floored poster beds. The
neat kitchen had a large coal-burning stove in the middle, and a pile of

558 CROSS FIRE

coal in one corner of the room. The family stored its stock of rice on a
concrete slab in front of the house, under a cover of carefully placed
straw to protect it against rain. More than anything else, what typified
the yearning for recognition of human dignity in the midst of poverty
was the pride the family took in the fact that each member had his or
her own wash basin, cup and toothbrush.

Leaving this farm home, we went immediately to the Shihmen Dam,
a most ambitious undertaking. Being built at a cost of $69,000,000, it
will make possible production of additional millions of bushels of rice.
As a by-product, it will provide facilities for recreation, boating, and
fishing.

Chiang Kai-shek, the seventy-four-year-old leader and President of
Nationalist China, received us in his palace. We met in a large room
beautifully furnished with old historic pieces that had been brought over
from the Chinese mainland. I don't recall many of the details of the
room, but I have a vivid impression of lovely d£cor. We didn't sit at a
table or on chairs as would be customary in the Western countries, but
on two antique sofas, he on one, I on the other, facing each other.

Chiang, like most Chinese, does not show his age. I had never met him
before, but of course I knew a bit about his background.

He had studied at the Military Staff College in Tokyo and when he
was graduated from there, in his early twenties, he joined the Japanese
Army* While in Japan, he met Sun Yat-sen who interested him in Chi-
nese Nationalism, so much so in fact that he joined Sun Yat-sen's secret
revolutionary society. The revolution broke out in 191 1 and Sun be-
came the provisional President of the Republic of China in 1912. Chiang
took part in the revolution and in ensuing years became one of Sun
Yat-sen's favorites, finally becoming Commander of the Nationalist
Army in the mid-ig20s.

Up to this time the Republic was an extremely loose federation,
with most of the provinces being ruled by local warlords. Chiang set
out to unify China, using the army to enforce his will, and was so suc-
cessful that by 1928 China had been unified and Chiang was President.

Throughout most of the 1930s, China was at war with Japan, and
the fighting, of course, went on until the end of World War II. Chiang
became the Generalissimo of the Chinese in the fighting against the
Japanese and in 1942 was made Commander-in-Chief in the Asiatic
Theater of Operations. After the end of World War II the Chinese
Communists, aided by the Russians and our tragic foreign policy, devel-
oped their forces to mount a successful series of campaigns that ended

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 559

in Chiang and what was left of his army being driven from the Chinese
mainland to the large island of Formosa.

During the years that followed, Chiang has never ceased to hope and
plan for a successful return to the mainland.

He impressed me as a most gendemanly person, his manner seeming
to exhibit a very marked kindliness. Contrary to some of the rumors that
he had become somewhat disillusioned and disappointed with respect to
the stand of the United States against the spread of communism, I found
him extremely grateful for the efforts of this country in behalf of a free
China. He asked for nothing, nor did he utter a word of complaint
about U.S. foreign policy with respect to China, either in the present or
the past.

After we had talked for a considerable time, Madame Chiang and
Mrs. Benson joined us. While the Generalissimo and I had been together,
Madame Chiang had been showing Flora some of the black teakwood
antiques at the far ends of the room. When the ladies joined us, refresh-
ments were brought in and the conversation took a bit of a lighter turn.
Madame Chiang, however, obviously knew quite well what the United
States was doing to help improve and stimulate the agriculture of For-
mosa.

She is surely one of the amazing women of the world. She was in her
early sixties at this time but still a beautiful as well as a remarkably
charming person. Born Mei-ling Soong, daughter of one of the most
prominent families in China, she was graduated from Wellesley College
in Massachusetts in 191 7. She married Chiang in 1927 and was a
tower of strength to him throughout all his campaigns and other activ-
ities.

Our next destination was Manila in the Philippines. What a warm-
hearted, generous people are the Filipinos. As Ambassador John D.
Hickerson said of them, "Even in business they're so nice that whatever
they do, you can't stay mad at them long. 55 The Filipinos can work
as hard as anybody, but nature has been so kind to the Islands, that many
of the people tend to follow the path of lesser, if not least, resistance.

After calling on the Secretary of Agriculture, Caesar Fortich, I left
for the Canlubang Sugar Plantation. On the way our car was stopped
by a group of Filipinos, including a number of young girls, who pre-
sented us with leis and some rice cake. There was a sign at a fork in
the road reading: WELCOME EZRA TAFT BENSON.

As we neared the entrance to the Plantation we came upon another
sign stretched overhead and across the road, saying in big letters

560 CROSS FIRE

W-E-L-C-O-M-E. A band broke into some spirited music and a big
assemblage of school children, boys on one side of the road, girls on the
other, began to wave American and Philippine flags. The welcome was
so sincere it was quite overwhelming. I wondered what I could do to
show my appreciation, and it suddenly occurred to me that if I walked
along a couple of hundred yards, I'd be able to talk with some of these
youngsters and shake their hands. So I got out of the car and began to
walk.

After I strolled along for about a quarter of a mile I suddenly began
to wonder what I had let myself in for. The line of children still stretched
far down the road, so far I couldn't see the end of it. But having begun a
gesture of sincere appreciation, I didn't feel I could quit. So I bit my lip,
tried to forget how long this line might conceivably prove to be, and kept
walking.

A good mile and a half down the road the line of youngsters petered
out. All I can say is it was a humbling experience, to get such a mam-
moth welcome from the children of this republic paying their respects
to the nation I represented.

The Plantation, in addition to its sugar operations conducts cattle ex-
periments, currently the crossing of Santa Gertrudis animals with native
cattle. We saw a great many armed guards on foot, on horseback, and
in cars. When I inquired about this, I was told very casually that the
Philippine version of our cattle rustling was rather common. There were
89 guards on the Plantation.

Then on to Australia and New Zealand. When we set down in Dar-
win early in the morning, the quarantine people removed all our food
from the plane except for some canned meat. They replaced the food,
however, so those who hadn't done so could finish breakfast. We went on
to Sydney and Canberra, and had conferences with Prime Minister
Robert Gordon Menzies, some of the Ministry and Parliament.

This great island continent is truly impressive. It does not take long
for one to sense the vastness of the land, the dynamic economic growth
that is taking place, the deep-rooted sincerity and friendliness of the peo-
ple.

In various talks, I referred to the fact that both our countries are big
agricultural exporters. 1

Since our two countries export many of the same commodities, we
compete keenly for world markets. But we are friendly competitors and
I believe this trip fostered that spirit of friendliness. I made a special

iln 1959-60, U.S. agricultural exports had a value of $4,500,000,000; Australia's
amounted to $1,800,000,000.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 561

point that our attempts to build markets abroad could help them too.
For example, our emphasis on trade in Japan had been on wheat itself
— not just U.S. wheat. If wheat consumption in Japan was expanded
as a result of this campaign, all wheat producing and exporting coun-
tries, including Australia, eventually would benefit from the enlarged
market.

Australia the previous year had been our biggest foreign supplier of
meat. 2

Further, I said that while U.S. imports of Australian farm products
were climbing from $53,000,000 (24,000,000 pounds) in 1957 to $131,-
000,000 (59,000,000 pounds) in 1959, Australian imports of U.S. farm
products over the same period dropped from $45,000,000 (20,000,000
pounds) to about $25,000,000 (11,000,000 pounds).

I hoped it would be possible for more of our farm products to enter
their country.

We left Canberra, Australia, a little after midnight on the morning of
November 23 and arrived at Auckland, New Zealand, next morning.

Then on Saturday, November 26, at noon, we set off again for Hawaii.
Flying high above the Pacific, knowing that this was the end of my
career as an official ambassador of good business and good will, my mind
roamed back over the trips I had made since 1955, the more than 40
countries visited, the people, the customs, the needs that I had seen.

The late Wendell Willkie once stressed the "well of good will" that
abounded in the world for America. I had found it true. I fervently
hoped that the visits had added to that well.

Two dominant impressions have been branded on my mind by what

1 have seen in these 43 countries: First, the Paradise that is the United
States of America, a land of abundance, of laughter, of confident peo-
ple, but above all a land of freedom; second, the fact that, despite sur-
face differences, people everywhere are very much alike. They want to
be free, they want peace, and they want a decent living.

Everywhere we found a lively curiosity, in the adults as well as the
youngsters. People want to know more about other people. They have a
deep-seated intuition that peace and mutual understanding go hand in
hand.

We can, indeed we must, build on this foundation. If the rural people
of the captive and Communist nations had their way, the dictators 5 yoke
would long since have been trampled into the dust.

2 Imports of all meats from Australia amounted to $92,000,000 (41,000,000 pounds)
in 1959, as compared with $2,000,000 (less than 1,000,000 pounds) in 1957-

562 CROSS FIRE

An Administration Cleans Out Its Desk

In the final two months of the Eisenhower Administration, kindness
literally overflowed. The people of this nation are without equal as po-
litical beings. No grudge bearers, they. With the elections over and the
first emotions, victory for some, defeat for us, softened by time, we closed
ranks. The stridencies of debate were temporarily stilled; we were united
Americans again.

Maybe because I had been one of the most controversial of the Eisen-
hower appointments, this period seemed especially blissful. My hide is
no thicker than anyone else's, and I do not like to fight continuously. And
that's what it had been. But these days, my only emotion was gratitude
for what we had achieved in eight years, and a growing regret at part-
ing.

Chicago's Saddle and Sirloin Club hung a portrait in their Hall of
Fame at a special banquet where some 400 leaders from across the na-
tion weathered a Chicago blizzard to do the honors. I stopped in at an
American Farm Bureau meeting in Denver, unexpectedly. They re-
sponded with an ovation.

We had a final meeting of the National Agricultural Advisory Com-
mission. They prepared a last report to the President which we delivered
to him in person at the White House. A few days later we held our last
luncheon meeting with the agency heads of the Department, and two re-
ceptions in my suite of offices for several hundred members of my co-
workers. I would miss these capable minds, these good faces — especially
my loyal and dedicated staff with whom I had worked so intimately
through eight eventful years.

And then it was Christmas again, the last we would spend in our home
on Quincy Street. Just as eight years before, we had had a "last" Christ-
mas in our home in Salt Lake, so we now experienced similar senti-
ments. Then, our family had been young and still intact. Now, three of
our brood were married, and two more, Beverly and Bonnie, showed
unmistakable signs that they, too, would soon be leaving to embark on
their own homemaking.

Because this was our last Christmas in Washington, Flora and the
girls outdid themselves in making the occasion festive. A couple of days
after Christmas, I tried to do my part by fulfilling a promise I had made
to the girls, namely to give them a final glimpse of the Big City. We
drove to New York, despite a heavy snowfall, and had a glorious time

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 563

seeing several Broadway plays and the Christmas show at the Radio
City Music Hall.

When we returned to Washington, I found on my desk the President's
Christmas season letter.

The White House
December 30, i960
Dear Ezra:

At the end of each of the past seven years, I have tried, by individual let-
ters, to express my gratitude to my close associates in the Administration
for their unfailing dedication and selflessness in the service of the nation.
In these final days of this Administration and the last holiday season we
shall spend together, I strive once more to find the words to express the
depth of my indebtedness to you. Personally and officially your counsel, as-
sistance and your very presence have meant much to me.

As a team, the group has performed magnificently. I, for one, refuse to
countenance its breaking up. I would rather think of us working — in diverse
localities to be sure — as vigorously as ever to forward the principles and
policies which we all supported because of their importance to the prosper-
ity and progress of our country and to the securing of a just and durable
peace. I know you will all do your best. So, I prefer to think of January
twentieth not as a date that will terminate our collective effort, but rather
as one in which each of us will now take to the grass roots our continuing
crusade for sound, progressive government.

In this spirit, then, let me thank you once again for your invaluable con-
tribution to the people of our country, and at the same time urge you to
keep the ranks closed and colors flying.

With best wishes to you and yours for a Merry Christmas and warm per-
sonal regard,

As ever,
D.E.

One evening in January, Flora and I joined with the other members
of the Cabinet and their wives, the Vice President and Cabot Lodge in
a black-tie testimonial dinner for the President and Mrs. Eisenhower.
In this evening at Blair House, one of the best evenings I have ever
spent, there were many personal chats, much posing for pictures,
and a truly wonderful exchange of good will. Chris Herter, serving as
master of ceremonies, called on Cabot Lodge, Art Summerfield, and me
for special remarks, all of us having been on the President's team for the
full eight years.

It was my privilege to make the presentation of the Cabinet gift to the
President and First Lady. Because it sums up my deep feeling for this
remarkable couple, I reproduce here in part what I said.

"I think I speak for all present when I say that our feelings are a bit
tender tonight. There is a certain amount of emotion inevitably con-

564 CROSS FIRE

nected with a gathering such as this which signals the approach of the
end — the formal end at least — of a very close and warm relationship
which has existed among us for a long period of time. This has been a
working relationship in large measure, but we have been your guests at
many delightful social and state functions and many other informal
contacts have lent a warmth and depth to this association which have
made it vibrant and unforgettable for us.

"No Cabinet ever received more loyal and unwavering support. No
President and his wife have ever been respected or loved more deeply by
his Cabinet and their wives.

"But we do not seek to eulogize you tonight — nor to try with words to
enhance the setting in which history will place you — nor to assign to
you your place in the hearts of your countrymen — this they have already
done and witnessed it with their prayers, their hopes, and their love.

"Rather we merely desire in a private and personal way to tell you
that our lives have been made richer by the privilege of knowing you —
working with you, and sharing with you some of the joys and sorrows,
hopes and heartaches, triumphs and disappointments, which have come
in the past eight years. We want you to know how we have admired and
benefited from your steadfastness of purpose, your faith in the Almighty,
your sincere concern for people as people, and your deep sense of dedi-
cation. It has been a privilege for each of us, beyond words to describe,
for which we are deeply grateful

"In all this we make no distinction between you, Mr. President, and
you, Mrs. Eisenhower, for you have stood together, and shared to-
gether the great and difficult hours as each day has brought them. A life
together such as yours molds two people until each is a part of the
other. God bless you both."

The President's gifts were two lovely, ancient sterling silver beverage
coolers, also used as containers for flowers, with the names of all the
Cabinet members inscribed, the women on one, the men on the other.

Art Summerfield presented our gifts to Mr. and Mrs. Nixon. The
Nixons received antique candelabra, again with the names of the women
inscribed on one and those of the men on the other.

Each member of the Cabinet spoke briefly, paying tribute to the Eisen-
howers and expressing gratitude for the privilege of working with them.

The President's remarks, in reply, glowed. He spoke eloquently of the
Cabinet's spirit of cooperation and unity. With a rueful grin, he ad-
mitted to having "quite a temper," and he thanked us for persisting in
holding to our views when we felt we were right, even when he, the
President, had given us rather curt and short shrift.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 565

The greatest disappointment of many years, he said, had been the
outcome of the elections.

He spoke, as he had on some occasions before, of his love for this
country and his awareness of the spiritual foundations on which it has
been built.

Finally, he said he hoped all of us who were members of the team
would continue to be active in support of sound policies and equally
active in opposition to that which is dangerous to our country.

This was our last social function together. Realizing that, the evening
for all of us was one of mingled sadness, gratitude, good will, and hope
for the future.

Then came my seventy-eighth and final news conference as Secretary
of Agriculture. I knew I was going to miss these meetings. Really, I'd en-
joyed them very much. The Washington news corps provide an invalua-
ble service to all America. Without their coverage and analyses of the
news, the people of the United States could never know the day-to-day
operations of their government.

Anyone in public life soon learns to admire the skill and persistence
with which the reporters of press, radio, and television do their jobs.
There is no question in my mind but that the news reporters and analysts
do the greatest job of adult education in this country. And since I
viewed my work as being more than anything else a task of informing
and educating the American people about the contributions and prob-
lems of agriculture in our economy, I deeply appreciated all that the
news corps had done in that direction.

Agricultural problems, and even agricultural terminology, are not
easily understood. When such terms as parity, reciprocal trade, and price
support come up, people have a tendency to turn off their minds and
stop listening. No doubt some of the reporters, who were newly assigned
to the agricultural beat, might not have known a spade from a blade.
But they tried to learn and they did learn; and they helped the general
public to learn.

Another thing anyone in public life soon comes to accept is criticism
which often seems unfair or biased. Still you never quite get used to it.
With one or two exceptions, however, I believe the news industry was
extremely gracious and fair. The individual who had proved to be least
so, in my opinion, was Drew Pearson. It seemed to me that he had had
his needle all primed even before I took office. He came to see me one
day, back in 1953, with a fantastic suggestion for the distribution of
food.

566 CROSS FIRE

I listened sympathetically and with interest to his suggestion. After we
had discussed it thoroughly, however, I took occasion to point out to him
how he had misinformed his readers about the farm program, the De-
partment and me personally,

"I will be happy, Mr. Pearson," I told him, "to cooperate with you
at any time if you desire to print the facts. The people are entitled to
the truth about the Department — and about public officials. My staff
and I will do our best to give you whatever facts you desire — even those
which may seem to put the Department or me in a bad light. We're
happy to have you express your opinion but we feel that deliberate mis-
representation of facts when facts are readily available is inexcusable."

It didn't do much good. It was our opinion that over the years Pear-
son's score for accuracy in his agricultural reporting was something less
than 40 per cent

But Pearson was one individual out of many, and assuredly he did not
represent the typical news reporter.

At this last news conference I expressed in all sincerity the hope that
the news corps would give the same objective cooperation to my suc-
cessor that they had given to me. In so doing they would help advance
the cause of good and effective government. Rather facetiously, I ex-
pressed regret I had caused so many of them to be false prophets as they
had made predictions on my tenure. I wished them all well, expressed
the desire that our paths would cross frequently, and hoped their joys
would be as deep as the ocean and their troubles as light as the foam.

Most memorable of all was the last meeting of the Cabinet, January
13, Once more we all took our places around the long coffin-shaped
table, with the pencil and paper sets seeming to wait expectantly for note-
making. There were no notes to make. Once more we rose as the Presi-
dent came in, bowed our heads in prayer (a longer than usual moment
of prayer this time) and then the President announced that there
would be some photographs taken. Besides the President and the Cabinet
proper, several members of his staff and others who frequently attended
were present.

I looked around at my colleagues. Of those first members of the
team, only a few remained. The redoubtable trio — Dulles, Humphrey,
and Wilson — had been replaced by Chris Herter, Bob Anderson, and
Tom Gates. Brownell, McKay, and Weeks had been followed by Rogers,
Seaton, and Mueller. Art Flemming had taken Mrs. Hobby's chair, and
Jim Mitchell that of Martin Durkin. Of the original Cabinet, only Art
Summerfield and I remained.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 567

Secretary Herter made a report on world population, which had in-
creased by 40,000,000 during the eight years of the Eisenhower Adminis-
tration. In South America population was growing very rapidly, and it
was vitally necessary that the economic expansion of that region should
keep pace.

The importance of a close and friendly relationship with Canada was
emphasized. In this connection I suggested that the President consider
making a trip to Canada during the summer of 1961 or '62, possibly to
Calgary to attend the famous stampede there, see Mount Eisenhower,
and make an address. Eisenhower thought and said that he and his
brothers were planning a reunion in Wisconsin and he just might go
up to Calgary from there.

Then the President summed up the events and accomplishments of his
Administration. All of us, he said, should continue to be active in carry-
ing forward the crusade that had been started in 1952. He himself ex-
pected to be a busy man, speaking, writing, and otherwise presenting
the views he believed in.

"Too often in the past, 5 ' he said at one point, "some of us have been
too sensitive to the opinions of a few critics and opponents. Several
times I've been approached to fire, or at least change the policies of the
Secretary of Agriculture. But, strangely, none of those who wanted me
to fire the Secretary had a better program than the one he had proposed."

Turning to the results of the election, the President told the Cabinet,
"I had a most pleasant meeting this morning with the new Republican
members of the Congress. Only two of them are over forty. It was one of
the most encouraging meetings I've had. They're a fine group, and I'm
sure they'll be an influence for good."

Some of these newcomers, he said, but especially two — one from Kan-
sas, one from Nebraska— "told me they're in Congress today because
they strongly supported the Benson farm program."

Naturally, I was grateful for the President's comment, but I couldn't
help feeling embarrassed for the Vice President and Fred Seaton. Both
were there. Both had tried to pull away from the Administration's farm
policy. Actually, I guess, the President's remarks may have been a little
discomforting also to Art Flemming, Jim Mitchell, and Bill Rogers, all
of whom had been rather lukewarm toward the farm program.

I pointed out that the Farm Belt record had been due in large meas-
ure to the President's own strong stand in agriculture — his vetoes, his
messages, his unwavering support in news conferences. With, I hope, a
softening smile, I couldn't resist adding, "I've never heard the word

568 CROSS FIRE

Vindication' so many times in a short period as I have since last Novem-
ber."

Near the end of this long meeting — it lasted nearly three hours — the
President emphasized that he intended to push in his speaking and writ-
ing for constitutional amendments which would provide for:

Four-year terms for Congressmen.

Changes in the time of political conventions, elections, and inaugura-
tions, so that they'd be held in August, September, and November re-
spectively.

Authority for the item veto, which would permit the President to dis-
approve of a part of a bill without killing the whole bill.

A requirement that the rejection of any nominee by the President
must be by a two-thirds vote of the Senate.

Just before we broke up, Maurice Stans, Director of the Budget,
pointed out that five of the eight budgets submitted by the Administra-
tion had been in balance and that the 1962 fiscal year budget would
show a surplus of $1,500,000,000. In the twenty years before Eisen-
hower, there had been just three balanced budgets. It seemed a good
note on which to adjourn.

Shortly before noon the President bade us adieu. "I don't want to
tell you goodby," he said, "because I hope we will be in touch with one
another through the years to come."

As we started down the hall it was to run a gauntlet of many members
of the White House staff clasping our hands and wishing us well.

Walking out of the White House, those corridors with which I had
become so familiar, and going to my car, I suddenly knew with a clear,
sad, and satisfying conviction that the one Washington countenance I
should most sorely miss, the hearty handshake I was most loath to forgo,
the encouraging word, cheery smile, and friendly spirit I should most
often remember in the years ahead would be those of Dwight David
Eisenhower, who served his country far better than most of his coun-
trymen could ever know.

45

As for Me: The Credo of a Conservative

Shortly before Eisenhower invited me into his Cabinet, I came to Wash-
ington for the dedication of a Church building in Chevy Chase. Having
grown to love Washington in the years I had spent there in the 1930s
and 1940s, I got a kind of thrill every time I returned in the period that
followed; a thrill composed both of nostalgia for the past and a sense
of oneness with the life, energy, and hum of accomplishment of this
seat of the greatest government ever devised by the ingenuity of man,
with the blessings of God.

On this occasion — it was a Friday evening at the end of October
I952 — 1 did something I had wanted to do for years. Going to the Capi-
tol I walked into the huge Statuary Hall where repose so many replicas
of outstanding Americans to remind us of the beginnings and growth of
our land. For a long time, I looked at the statue of Brigham Young
over in one corner; and I meditated on the life of this Mormon pioneer,
and on the way our people had flourished in the century since he had
led them West.

Then I left the Capitol, going down the great, wide steps and around
to the west side of the building, and looked toward the floodlighted
Washington Monument rising strong and tall in brilliant whiteness, red
lights twinkling in its tower, a sentinel on watch over a city and a na-
tion.

I began to walk straight through the mall, on the grass, toward that
symbol of national glory dedicated to the immortal memory of our first
President. It was a beautiful evening, one of those "what is so rare as"
evenings. The sun had gone down; the air, delightfully fresh, contained
just a tinge of autumn crispness, a weekend was beginning, and the gov-
ernment and other workers had left their offices and gone home. So it

570 CROSS FIRE

was in comparative solitude that I began the mile and a quarter walk
from the Capitol to the Monument, a thick mat of grass underfoot, the
nearest buildings a hundred yards or so to either side of me, reviewing as
I went the history of this choice land, the background of its greatness,
and the fundamental concepts upon which our way of life is built.

Standing close beside the obelisk and looking up to the full 555 feet
of its tall strength, I had the impression that it was leaning toward me,
protectively, and it occurred to me that, just so, the ideals of the great
Washington have protected this nation for going on two centuries.

Three-quarters of a mile to the west, beckoned the gleaming white
marble walls of the Lincoln Memorial, and I started walking again.
Soon I came to the reflecting pool, a long, narrow mirror of water lying
between the Monument and Memorial. I stopped beside the pool, gaz-
ing down into the placid water at the reflection of the Memorial. Then,
moving onward a little distance and turning back toward the east, I
first looked up at the Monument and then down at its slender shape
mirrored in the pool. Stepping over to one corner of the pool, I found I
was able to see reflected there three of Washington's most famous struc-
tures — the Memorial, the Monument, and the Capitol Suddenly, the
history of this country seemed for a moment to merge into one great
whole; its beginnings under Washington; its preservation under Lin-
coln; and its continuing life and vigor as exemplified in the Capitol.

Still under the spell of that moment I climbed the steps of the Memo-
rial. Here again is a structure whose dimensions dwarf its size. Nearly
200 feet long and well over 100 feet wide, its huge hall is surrounded by
36 giant columns, standing for the 36 States in the Union when Lincoln
was President, I gazed at the mammoth statue of Lincoln sitting bolt up-
right in a chair, his arms resting on the arms of the chair, his long legs
gathered beneath him, and I read and pondered over the inscription on
the wall behind and above his head:

In This Temple

As in the Hearts of the People

For Whom He Saved the Union

The Memory of Abraham Lincoln

Is Enshrined Forever

I went into the side sections of the hall and read the tablets, one con-
taining the Gettysburg Address and another the words of the Second
Inaugural; those beautiful phrases, "with malice toward none," "with
charity for all," "bind up the nation's wounds," "care for him who shall
have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan," "do all which

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 571

may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace." And as I stood look-
ing up, there came into my heart such a surge of gratitude for the
privilege of being a citizen of this land, for the priceless blessing of being
an American, as I had never known before.

I mention this incident because its meaning bulks large in my beliefs
as a lover of liberty. I am a libertarian. I want to be known as a liber-
tarian and as a constitutionalist in the tradition of the early James
Madison — Father of the Constitution. Labels change and perhaps in
the old tradition I'd be considered one of the original Whigs. The new
title I'd wear today is that of conservative — though in its original British
connotation the term liberal fits me better than the original meaning of
the word conservative. To show you how labels can change or be stolen,
a liberal today believes in greater government intervention and less per-
sonal freedom for the people, which is practically the opposite of what
the old liberals believed years ago.

It is practically impossible to group American political beliefs today
under two or three labels because there are so many shades. Yet if neces-
sity demanded you'd probably end up with the modern labels of conserv-
ative, middle-of-the roader, and liberal, with the liberal sympathetic
with much if not most of the goals of the socialist in government owner-
ship and operation of the essential means of production and distribution
of goods. Under this breakdown as a lover of liberty I'd have to be at
the opposite end of the modern day liberal. In other words I'd be a con-
servative — yes even a conservative conservative.

Now I also want my fellow men to know what this conservative stands
for and not to accept the myths with which the enemies of the con-
servative cause have surrounded the word and by means of which they
endeavor to strangle that cause.

Myth Number One: Foremost is the assumption so widely credited to-
day that a conservative wants to turn back the clock, that he lives in the
past, longs for the days of McKinley, and has had to be "dragged kick-
ing and screaming into the twentieth century."

As a conservative I believe we must continually seek progress. We
must prepare for progress, strive for it, insist on it. But this does not
mean that we must accept every proposed change on the assumption
that all change is progress. Change is a two-way street. We can follow it
forward or we can travel it backward. It is the reactionary who resists
all change.

However I have never felt that constantly stirring things up and
changing policy by continually presenting new emergency programs to

57 2 GROSS FIRE

the people is the solution. I have great faith in the free enterprise system
which is based on the choice of the people and I would be slow to inter-
fere in the workings of that system. To me this has nothing to do with
turning back the clock.

In politics I am a conservative, in agriculture a conservationist. To be
so, I do not have to wear two hats. The two just naturally go together.
The conservationist seeks to preserve, develop and improve the natural
resources of soil, water, minerals and timber that made and that keep
this country materially rich. The conservative seeks to preserve, develop,
and improve the political resources that made and keep this country free.

Strangely enough, some of the same people who praise my conserva-
tionism as forward-looking and courageous criticize my conservatism as
backward-looking and timid,

Why this should be I don't understand. I'm the same man in either
case.

To me, the political resources of this land are no less important than
its natural resources. As a conservative and a conservationist, I want to
preserve both, develop both, improve both.

Our opponents have out-propagandized us. They have done an effec-
tive job of symbolizing the liberal as young, adventurous, a pioneer in
spirit, confident and fearless, forward-looking, and eager for tomor-
row; while the conservative they have portrayed as old, tired, dejected,
timid, and uncertain, rooted and bound to the dead past. Try as we
will, we have not yet been able sufficiently to dispel these false images.
We conservatives must become more articulate. We must speak out and
make the truth known.

Myth Number Two: Conservatives are negative individuals; they are
always against, never for. I must admit that here again our antagonists
have done an effective job on us. But U.S. conservatism is essentially
positive. We stand for the preservation and improvement of American
traditional ideals. What we oppose we oppose only because it is negative,
and destructive of these ideals. We are against creeping socialism be-
cause we are for American freedom. We are against the easy turning
to the Federal Government for financial aid whenever a pinch is felt,
because we are for individual initiative and responsibility.

Oddly, we are closer to the thinking of the great Americans including
the great Democrats than are the modern day liberals.

We remember that Washington said of government, "Like fire, it is a
dangerous servant and a fearful master."

We remember that Madison wrote, "I believe there are more instances
of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 573

encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpa-
tions."

We remember that Jefferson said, "If we can prevent the government
from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of caring
for them, they will be happy."

We remember that Grover Cleveland vetoed a bill to provide free seed
for farmers with these words, "Though the people should support the
government, the government should not support the people."

We remember that Woodrow Wilson declared, "The history of lib-
erty is the history of limitations of governmental power, not the increases
of it."

We remember something that a certain Senator Kennedy from Massa-
chusetts said in 1950, "Every time that we try to shift a problem to the
government, to the same extent we are sacrificing the liberties of the
people."

And we remember the often-quoted remark of President Kennedy,
who admonished in his Inaugural, "Ask not what your country can do
for you — ask what you can do for your country."

As a conservative, I honestly subscribe to each of these statements.
How many modern day liberals can say the same?

Myth Number Three: Conservatives are more interested in property
rights than in human rights. This statement is meaningless; it obscures
the truth that the right to property is a human right. Property as such
has no rights. Only human beings have rights, and among these is that
of acquiring and owning property. As a conservative, I deplore as a vio-
lation of human rights the efforts to place more and more of the func-
tions of private business and free enterprise in the hands of government.
Few people realize how far this trend has already gone. In 1920 govern-
ment-owned electric utilities accounted for only 5 per cent of the electric
power generated in the United States. Now the figure is 25 per cent.

One out of every six working persons is now on a government payroll,
either Federal, state, or local.

The housing industry is financed largely by Federal Government
money.

The shipping industry is to a large extent subsidized by Federal Gov-
ernment funds.

The annual budget of the U. S. Department of Agriculture is equiva-
lent to more than half of the net income all 3,700,000 U.S. farm op-
erators derive from agriculture. Expenditures for supporting the prices
of farm commodities and stabilizing the income of farm producers are
equivalent to one-third of net farm income.

574 CROSS FIRE

Federal, state, and local taxes take about 35 per cent of the national
income, and 84 per cent of all taxes arc collected by the Federal Govern-
ment.

As a conservative I deplore these trends because I am for the human
right of human beings to acquire and own property. I don't want to see
us travel closer and closer to the conditions that prevail in Communist
states where men and women have been stripped of their property —
their savings confiscated— their farms taken from them — their businesses
seized by the state. In those nations people work where they are com-
manded to work and for such wages as the state chooses to provide.
They cannot quit, take another job, or rebel in any effective way. They
are the puppets of the all-powerful state.

The greatest right humans possess is the right of free choice, free will,
free agency. This, above all, is what todays true conservative strives to
preserve for his fellow men and for himself. Ironically, it is this very ob-
jective that has helped to give credence to the myths. Because the con-
servative fervently believes in human freedom, he is slow to tell everybody
else how to run their lives. It goes against the conservative grain to be a
political, social, or economic busybody, and especially to beat the drums
for government action on virtually every existing problem. The modern
liberal, unfortunately, has few such scruples.

Myth Number Pour: Conservatives lack the courage to face the fu-
ture realistically. The truth is that conservatives act as they do simply
because they do face up to the future. As a conservative, I refuse to bar-
ter the long-time future for a fleeting advantage in the short-time present.
It is the liberal who, whether from lack of courage or lack of judgment,
turns his back on tomorrow.

The liberal tends to be a compulsive spender of government funds.

Near the close of the i960 session of the 86th Congress, the Congres-
sional Record listed 40 big spending bills introduced but not yet acted
on in the House and Senate. Their estimated costs came to more than
$326,000,000,000 over an average period of about five years. Later esti-
mates by fiscal authorities reveal that in addition to direct debt the gov-
ernment has piled up huge unfunded liabilities and commitments for
future spending that total about $450,000,000,000. Added to the cur-
rent debt of $300,000,000,000, our total commitments now reach the
incredible total of $750,000,000,000 or three-quarters of a trillion dol-
lars and this does not include some $300,000,000,000 Social Security
obligations for which there is no reserve.

The government has piled up a vast amount of C.O.D.s for the future.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 575

Entirely aside from those 40 spending bills, here are some of the many
other commitments already on our national books:

Completing the interstate highway system after fiscal i960 may cost
$25,000,000,000 to $35,000,000,000.

Completing direct Federal civil public works projects started prior to
fiscal i960 will cost about $8,000,000,000.

Public housing commitments — entirely aside from additions by the
Kennedy Administration — $6,000,000,000.

Commitments for capital improvements in communities, such as for
urban renewal and college housing — $3,000,000,000.

Merchant marine subsidies and future ship replacements — $4,400,-
000,000.

Conservation reserve payments to farmers already contracted for —
$2,200,000,000.

These, together with unexpended balances in the defense program, to-
taled as of early 1961 some $98,000,000,000 of commitments for future
Federal spending.

Many of these expenditures will be for values not yet received. Some of
them will pay for themselves over the years. But in addition to
$98,000,000,000, the Federal Government must pay out even larger
sums for services already rendered.

There are $30,000,000,000 of accrued liability for military retirement
— $27,500,000,000 actuarially due on present obligations to civilian gov-
ernment employees under the Civil Service Retirement laws — plus fu-
ture pensions and compensation to war veterans and their dependents
that, over the years, will total roughly $300,000,000,000. Add to these
a national debt of some $300,000,000,000, and our C.O.D.s already
total over $750,000,000,000 — over and above the annual costs of pro-
viding for national defense, welfare, and commerce.

To go on spending and commiting future income in this reckless way
is to be unrealistic. This indeed is turning one's back on the future.

It is because liberals recklessly sought the short-run advantage that
wartime rigid supports were continued so long in peacetime with the re-
sult that what was earlier an adverse future possibility became eventually
a terribly serious present difficulty.

A few years ago a story made the rounds in Washington that illus-
trates the liberal tendency to seek the short-run advantage. In ancient
Babylon, the story goes, a man, convicted of a crime and sentenced to
exile, appealed to the king to spare him. "All right," said the king. "As
you know, I have a prize bull of which I am very fond. I'll give you a
choice. Either accept your present sentence and go into exile, or under-

57^ CROSS FIRE

take to teach my bull to fly. If within a year you teach him to fly, you
will go free. But if you fail, you shall die the death of a thousand tor-
ments,"

The convict, after brief reflection, chose to teach the bull to fly.

"You idiot," said the convict's friend, "Why did you make this foolish
choice? Think of the death of a thousand torments!"

"Foolish? Don't be so sure," said the convict. "In a year's time the
king may die, or I may die. Or, who can tell? I may teach the bull to
fly."

Myth Number Five; Conservatives are conformists who wish to cast
all people in their own mold. Nothing could be sillier or more easily
refuted than this myth. Surely it is not the conservative who wants a
"planned society," everything figured out for everybody in advance from
the cradle to the grave.

It isn't the conservative who wants to tell the farmer how much
wheat, corn, or cotton he can plant or who wants to put farmers back,
and more firmly, into the price support and acreage control strait
jacket, so they'll all fit the pattern of a Washington planned agriculture.

Nor is it the conservative who wants to federalize the American peo-
ple, to run them figuratively through IBM machines, to pattern them to
a mold so they can be standardized and machine processed.

As a conservative I have nothing against the proper use of IBM
machines. I just don't want to become one. I don't want to lose my
individuality. I don't want to be increasingly told what's good for me
by Washington bureaucrats. I'd like to decide a few things for myself.

What it seems to come down to is this: The conservative has faith in
the human person to make his own decisions. The liberal has faith in
the ability of Washington to make more and more decisions for us.

The liberals would impose on the people their version of progress
whether the people want it or not. Conservatives believe that the best
way to achieve progress in our country is through individual effort and
not government force which in the end will destroy all progress and all
freedom. In the long run we do things better for ourselves than govern-
ment can do them for us. Government serves best when it protects the
freedom of the individual. But the moment the government steps in
and dictates the economic or agricultural life of the Nation, the indi-
vidual's rights begin to diminish and are in danger ultimately of vanish-
ing.

The conservative has the deepest respect for law. He believes in a
government of laws, not of men. The liberal? Robert A. Taft put it
bluntly.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 577

"The whole trouble with the New Dealers " Taft once said, "is that
they believe that whatever they desire the Court should hold to be con-
stitutional. They do not care what happens to the fundamental principles
on which this country was founded. Most of them would be willing to
abolish the states and turn over all local government to Federal control.
All of them favor the delegation of legislative power to the President
and seem to forget that this was the first step in the growth of autocracy
in Germany and Italy."

Over a century ago the French philosopher and historian Alexis
de Tocqueville, who knew so well the conditions of this country, wrote:
"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common except one word
— equality. But notice the difference, while democracy seeks equality
in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint."

Today, the scope and variety of governmental operations have be-
come amazingly wide. We are touched by government from before we
are born until after we die. Government impinges on our lives every
hour of the day and night.

Some of these governmental activities are helpful in greater or lesser
degree. But we must face the central problem of just how much of our
lives, of our freedom, of our economy, and of our society we want to
entrust to government.

Is government going to get even bigger and bigger and yet still bigger?
Are we going to turn over to government still more of our freedom, of
our economy, of our society?

We must stop this trend. Deep in their hearts the American people
know that great concentration of power is a dangerous thing. Once
power is concentrated, even for helpful purposes, it is all there, in one
package, where it can be grabbed by those who may be evil in its use.

This is the background to my credo as a conservative.

As a conservative, I believe that the founders of this nation introduced
into the world a new concept of government and of the rights of in-
dividuals. They bequeathed to us a heritage of freedom and unity that
is our most priceless political possession. I believe that we must realize
—you and I— the great gift that is ours: this gift of freedom.

We must understand that the freedom we possess, though it was
bought for us at Valley Forge, and preserved on the high seas by Old
Ironsides, and maintained at Gettysburg, must still be nourished today
by you and me with the energy of our daily deeds.

I believe that we must rise to a new appreciation of the sober fact
that the only way the banner of freedom can continue to fly is against

578 CROSS FIRE

the wind — against the wind of "Relax and be satisfied/' "Let George
do it, 5 ' "It's not my affair," and "Why worry, life is too short?' 9

We dare not, in a word, take our precious God-given freedom for
granted.

The time was in this land when very little could be taken for granted.
My great-grandfather entered Salt Lake Valley in 1847 with the first
company of Mormon pioneers. My grandfather was born in a wagon
box as the family traversed the plains on the way to Utah, What could
they and other pioneers throughout the early history of this nation take
for granted? They could not even take water for granted as they crossed
the desert.

But we? Part of the world is hungry, but we take food for granted,
from soup to nuts. Part of the world is half-naked, but we take over-
coats for granted. We take for granted the policeman on the beat, the
fireman at the firehouse, the collection of rubbish and trash at regular
intervals, the electricity awaiting the touch of our finger. We take vita-
mins and antibiotics for granted, cars and shower baths, newspapers
and books, typewriters and sewing machines — and TV sets, the old mira-
cles and the new.

It is natural to take for granted what we are accustomed to. But the
one thing we must not take for granted is freedom — the freedom be-
queathed to us under our Constitution. To be enjoyed, freedom must be
continually won,

I believe it is the major task of the conservative to arouse from their
lethargy the disinterested, that great group of otherwise intelligent peo-
ple who shrug off any responsibility for public affairs.

Freedom can be killed by neglect as well as by direct attacks.

It is my firm belief that the God of Heaven guided the founding
fathers in establishing this great nation for His particular purposes. This
is not just another nation. We in this choice land have a great and
glorious mission to perform for liberty-loving people everywhere,

I believe that ours is the opportunity, the responsibility, and the
solemn obligation in this mid-twentieth century, to stand firm for free-
dom, justice, and morality. It is for us to prove that we are worthy of
our rich blessings. By our lives we are required to demonstrate that the
future security of this land is in good hands.

As a conservative, I believe that our free enterprise economic order
is not perfect, but it is better by far than the state-directed economy of
any other nation. It is the best system in operation in the world today.
It has given us more of the good things of life — a higher standard of
living — than any other system in existence. Of course it is not perfect.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 579

It is operated by imperfect human beings. Let us admit the weaknesses
that exist. Let us work aggressively to correct them. If the face of our
economy is dirty in places, let us wash it. But let us not subject it to
unneeded amputations and plastic surgery.

We must recognize the danger that is posed by well-meaning but
uninformed liberals who, seeing the shortcomings of our economic sys-
tem, believe they can legislate them out of existence. They try to reach
the promised land by passing laws. They do not understand our eco-
nomic system. They would load it down with burdens it was never in-
tended to carry. As their schemes begin to break down, more and more
controls must be applied. Patch is placed upon patch, regulation is
added to regulation until ultimately freedom is lost — lost without our
desiring to lose it and without our knowing why or how it was lost.

I believe that the government should strive toward helping the in-
dividual to help himself, rather than on concentrating undue power in
Washington.

I believe it is impossible to help people permanently by doing for them
what they could and should do for themselves. As a conservative, I be-
lieve in the supreme worth of the individual as a free man and as a
child of God.

I believe in the dignity of labor and I have the conviction that you
cannot build character by taking away man's initiative and independ-
ence.

I believe that character is the one thing we make in this world that
we can take with us into the next — and that this in part is what the Mas-
ter meant when He said, "What doth it profit a man to gain the whole
world and lose his own soul?"

As a conservative, I believe we must wage war upon the brute forces
of poverty and need — and this, of course, is actually waging peace. I
believe we can wage peace most effectively by standing firmly for right,
freedom, and justice.

I believe with President Eisenhower that we must "dedicate our
strength to serving the needs, rather than the fears, of the world," while
realizing we can't possibly feed the world. I believe errands of mercy,
such as the distribution of food, housing, and clothing to those in need,
are rendered most effectively when handled by private individuals and
organizations such as the Church. I was responsible for distributing
thousands of tons of supplies from the Mormon Welfare Program to
European Refugees and war victims after the war and like my fellow
Mormons I have fasted for 24 hours each month ever since I was a boy

5§0 GROSS FIRE

and given the money I would have spent for the food to assist any poor
in the Church, thus benefiting the giver as well as the receiver.

Almost daily, new marvels of industry and science are presented to
make living better and easier for the people of this land. If the threat of
war can be removed and our powerful economic machine released to
produce for peace, the time may soon come when we shall have a slum-
less America and when such economic diseases as poverty and malnutri-
tion will be rare indeed.

But what we must never forget is that our past advances have been
the fruit of our freedom, of free enterprise, of our God-given freedom
of choice— and the progress of the future must stem from these same
basic freedoms.

The blessings of abundance we now possess have come to us through
an economic system which rests largely on three pillars:

1. Free enterprise — the right to venture — to choose.

2. Private property — the right to own.

3. A market economy — the right to exchange.

We can and we must maintain the strength of these pillars.

As a conservative, I believe that along with freedom we need, more
today than ever before, devotion to our God-given ideals.

I believe we must individually call our consciences to account by ask-
ing ourselves: "Do I, a citizen of this nation, love the Lord enough to
keep His commandments, and secondly, do I love my neighbor as my-
self? 55

Am I, individually, too concerned with material things that have no
permanent value? Am I motivated largely by selfish interests? Am I an
indifferent, irreverent seeker after passing pleasures? Do the words of
Lincoln ring down through the ages as a solemn indictment of me and
the society I live in today? "We have been the recipients of the choicest
bounties of Heaven," Lincoln said. "We have grown in numbers,
wealth, and power as no other nation has ever grown, but we have for-
gotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserves us
in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we
have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these
blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our
own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-
sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too
proud to pray to God that made us. It behooves us, then, to humble our-
selves before the offended power, to confess our national sins, and to
pray for clemency and forgiveness, 55

The days ahead are sobering and challenging and will demand the

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 581

faith, prayers, action, and loyalty of every American. There is no other
course if our way of life is to endure. Only in this course is there safety
for our nation.

Many centuries ago, the Lord spoke through the mouth of David,
the psalmist, saying: "Except the Lord build the house, they labour in
vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh
but in vain." If all our doings can have the blessings of a kind Providence
therein is safety, strength, and prosperity that no other course of action
can achieve.

This is America — the land of opportunity! A land choice above all
other lands. Let us keep it so.

With God's help the light of high resolve in the eyes of the American
people must never be dimmed! Our freedom must — and will — be pre-
served.

It will continue to be a land of freedom and liberty as long as we are
able to advance in the light of sound and enduring principles. To
sacrifice such principles for momentary expediency — often selfishly moti-
vated — is to endanger our noble heritage and is unworthy of this great
American people.

With all my heart I love this nation. To me this is not just another
nation. This is not just one of a family of nations. This is a nation with
a great mission for the benefit and blessing of liberty-loving people
everywhere. It is my firm conviction that the Constitution of this land
was established by men whom the God of Heaven raised up unto this
very purpose.

Yes, the days ahead are sobering and challenging and will require the
faith, prayers, and loyalty of every American. Our challenge is to keep
America strong and free — strong socially, strong economically, and above
all, strong spiritually, if our way of life is to endure.

46

The Hot Seat

My Cabinet chair was purchased from the government for $88 by
friends in the Department and presented to me at a farewell testimonial
shortly before I left office. Over the years we had taken to calling it
"the hot seat." I must say there were times when I thought I couldn't
have given it away, much less gotten $88 for it.

But now that the heat was off, Flora earmarked it for the dining room
of our Salt Lake City home.

One might ask us if the eight years in the hot seat had been worth all
the effort. Such questions are prompted by the obvious trials of public
office. Weighing these years, years I would have spent in comparative
quiet in full time Church work — the effect of these eight years on our
family life, the loss of privacy, the extra burdens which Flora had
shouldered, I wondered myself.

Sometimes exhilarating, sometimes disheartening; now happy, now
sad; full of activity, even of turmoil; laden with responsibility; replete
with challenge; years of pressures with not much time to rest or meditate;
in taking the post I had mounted a blistering treadmill.

What had we accomplished? Certainly, less than I had hoped for.
Yet the score, it seemed to me, was quite considerable. New terms had
been added to the agricultural lexicon, some of them seemingly destined
to become permanent: Food for Peace — Rural Development — Great
Plains Program — Special School Milk Program — Public Law 480 — and
others such as Soil Bank, Acreage Reserve, and Conservation Reserve.

The names, of course, were unimportant; what they signified was all
that really counted. Were these worth while? What did the score sheet
show? To our eyes, it made good reading. 1

1 See Appendix G.

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 583

It was in January 1961 that I heard for presumably the last time in
my lifetime the newspaper chorus with the Benson policies as their
theme — and I must confess that they made a good sound in my ears as
I read an Associated Press story which said in part: "American agri-
cultural commodities are moving into export markets in volumes un-
dreamed of a decade ago. And they are going to areas that not so many
years ago obtained little from this country.

"Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson has been criticized by
political opponents and some farm leaders for his policies on farm price
supports and government crop controls. But there is fairly general
feeling that Mr. Benson's department did a remarkable job in getting
extra farm commodities into foreign markets and especially into back-
ward and hungry areas where they were sorely needed."

"No member of the Cabinet in the outgoing administration/ 5 said the
New York Herald Tribune, "deserves a more respectful farewell than
Ezra Taft Benson, who resigned last week as Secretary of Agriculture."

Speaking of vindications of public officials, the Baltimore Sun wrote:
"It happened to Mr. Dulles and it certainly would be ironic if it now
happened to Mr. Benson . . . Mr. Benson is about to leave office with
the Eisenhower Administration. And a surprising burst of commentary
points out that farm income is really not so bad, that farm prices are
more realistic and that farm exports are rising month by month."

The various agricultural letters published in Washington also dealt
with the dented and retiring Secretary rather kindly. "This is going to
be a good year for making money on the farm," one said. Another,
which had tended to be rather sharply critical of the Eisenhower farm
policies put it this way. "Benson never deviated from his No. 1 goal of
freedom for farmers from gov't controls ... He resisted pressures &
took abuse as has no Secretary in our memory ... He was adored, or
hated — no middle ground . . . We may live to be a hundred, but we
doubt we will see his like again in USDA."

But the praise was for an idea and for a host of people.

Now that the time had once again arrived for us to pick up and move
into a new phase of our lives, we found ourselves repeating many of the
experiences of eight years before. Leave-takings, uprooting ourselves
from the Washington home, putting aside the work which had so
thoroughly captured my interest. True, with all my heart, I wanted to
get back to my Church. But, humanlike, I wanted to take all this with
me.

How hard it suddenly became to bid farewell to those with whom

584 GROSS FIRE

we had sweated out the battles over farm legislation, rejoicing in our
victories, commiserating with one another in defeat even as we picked
up the pieces of shattered hopes and girded our strength for repeated
assaults on entrenched opposition. When you have been part of a team
and have stood shoulder to shoulder giving of your strength and spirit
in a common cause until you are quite drained of energy, unbreakable
bonds are forged.

My feeling for these wonderful colleagues extended not only to the
Under Secretary and Assistant Secretaries — True Morse, Earl Coke,
John Davis, Earl Butz, Ervin Peterson, Clarence Miller, Marvin Mc-
Lain, Ralph Roberts, Don Paarlberg, and "Fergy" Ferguson — it ex-
tended to all with whom I had been closely associated — my executive
assistants — the agency people, my personal secretaries, the girls in the
outer office, the chauffeurs and messengers.

We were more than colleagues; we were friends. I wished I could
tell them how much they meant to me. Maybe they knew without my
attempting the impossible task of putting it into words; I hope so.

Then there were our many Church friends, with some of whom we
had the closest bonds of all. The Marriotts, for example; how could we
leave them without a mighty tug of the heartstrings? And our neighbor
friends in Crestwood; we would miss them all.

We had hoped to complete all arrangements for moving, including
selling the house, and packing and shipping the furniture, by February
1. By that date, however, we were nowhere near ready to depart. This
time selling the house had fallen largely upon me and I guess the re-
sult proved that Flora had considerably more ability than I. There were
a lot of lookers but no contracts.

Then, too, the size of the job of checking out as Secretary was bigger
than we'd expected.

When I accepted Ike's invitation to the Cabinet in 1952, thousands
of letters and telegrams had poured in. Now in January 1961, the flood
of farewell messages and good wishes was naturally many times larger.
With the help of family and staff, I answered as many of these as possi-
ble before January 20. Many of the staff worked late the night of
January 19 and were caught in a heavy snowstorm which so tied up
traffic that some didn't reach home until eleven or twelve o'clock that
night.

But much of the mail came after January 20. Incoming Secretary
Orville L. Freeman and I had cooperated in mating the transfer as
smooth as possible. Immediately his selection as the new Secretary was
announced, we had set up offices and provided clerical help for his

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 585

personal staff. Now he responded by providing quarters and clerical
assistance for Miller Shurtleff who was cleaning up odds and ends for
me.

Though the sale of the house had still not been fully completed, we
decided to move the family to Salt Lake during the last full week in
February. Flora and the girls took the full responsibility of the packing.
For weeks Flora worked tirelessly so things would run off smoothly on
the day of our moving.

On Washington's Birthday the vans pulled up and the final disman-
tling of our Crestwood home began. Soon, stripped of the personality of
its furnishings, our shelter of these past years became just a shell. But
before we left Flora and I walked through it room by room, and every
corner we found alive with memories. This, more than any other, was
the home in which most of our family had "grown up." We hoped God
would bless its occupants of the future as richly as He had blessed us.

Flora and the three girls traveled west by plane. (I saw them off at the
airport) much as they had so often seen me off on frequent trips. They
went ahead of me to receive our furniture and belongings: as they
took off I suddenly realized anew how much I owed Flora for her
amazing steadfastness and hard work over all these years.

The sale of the house appeared imminent, but it still had not been
consummated. Finally, the matter was settled and I said goodby to Reed
and May.

It is difficult for a father to talk about his own son, let alone to bid
him goodby.

Except for my own wife, Reed could see more fully what I was trying
to accomplish possibly better than anyone else. While he would never
accept employment in the Department of Agriculture (he served as con-
fidential assistant to the U. S. Veterans Administrator) he gave untold
hours of volunteer, devoted service to help me free agriculture and pre-
serve our nation's liberties. He felt that the most good would be ac-
complished if I kept in the limelight while he worked quietly and
effectively behind the scenes on matters that were often of the utmost
importance. Few people realized the righteous influence he carried with
me. But this he believed was all the better because it enabled him to
move more freely to do his work.

He was so close that some men who understood this — President J.
Reuben Clark of the Mormon Church, for example — sent farm delega-
tions with problems directly to him.

There are many good things attributed to me in which he played a
major role. Only a kind Providence would know all the unpublicized

$86 CROSS FIRE

sacrifices he made for his country, his father and the Church. I could
only hope that some day that same Providence would "reward him
openly."

Mark has contributed equally in helping and sustaining me and our
family even though he lived much of the time in the West. I have equal
pride in him and gratitude for his loyal support and that of his lovely
wife and five children. His deeply spiritual and upright life has been a
constant encouragement and inspiration to me. He is always ready to
go the second mile in service to me and his fellow man.

I also pay tribute to our daughters: Barbara, now Mrs. Robert Harris
Walker, Beverly, now Mrs. James Mclntyre Parker and Bonnie, now
Mrs. Lowell Madsen, and the youngest, Flora Beth, still at home with
us. No father could be blessed with four more loyal, spiritual and choice
daughters, who shared all the joys and disappointments with a constant
prayer of devotion on their lips for my interest and welfare.

And no man could be blessed with a more devoted, loyal and united
wife and children. They share heavily in anything that I have been able
to accomplish while serving for eight years in the government of the
United States.

I headed my car westward. Driving alone gave me plenty of time to
think— and to talk, too. As I went through the country I'd pull up at
a service station or a country store and visit. It was something I had
always enjoyed— that and stopping to talk with farmers in the fields.
There's an especially homely feeling about seeing a farmer in a field,
pulling up on the side of the road, getting out of the car and going over
to talk. Most of the time when I did this kind of thing, I was not rec-
ognized. Sometimes when the person I was talking with introduced
himself, and I mentioned my name in response, he'd give me a queer
look and say, "Are you any relation to that fellow in Washington?" And
when I answered, I had the feeling that he only half-believed me.

One of the subjects on which I meditated now that it was all over,
had my status as a Church official impeded in any way the efficiency
with which I had discharged my governmental duties?

There were those who had scoffed because I ended almost every
speech on a spiritual note by referring our work and our aims to God,
and appealing for His blessing. Others had assailed me for "dragging
the Lord into politics." I do not think I ever brought Him into politics,
but I did welcome Him into my work as a public official.

Despite this criticism, however, I do not consider that my faith was
in any sense a handicap in the work as Secretary. It was, on the con-

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 587

trary, an immense asset. It gave me courage, serenity, perseverance,
strength. It provided basic principles to guide me.

My faith is the dominant force in my life, and I would not want to
hide it. If one's faith does not rule his life, then either his faith is not
giving him enough or he is not giving his faith enough.

Next to my religious faith the influence which sustained me most, not
only as Secretary but throughout my adult life, was that of my wife. It
was Flora's ideas and courage— her positive influence and determination
—more than anything else which added steel to my spine to fight it out
for principle against the nearly overwhelming pressures of political ex-
pediency.

Her providential discernment, cutting sharply through the fog that
often surrounds men and issues, saved both myself and the children from
many a pitfall.

I was not one to leave my problems at the office. Flora constantly took
the brunt of them at home. For practically every major problem she and
the kind Lord — with whom she worked so closely — seemed to go into
consultation. Before long she'd usually be coming out with some un-
canny reasoning and inspiration which, when coupled with her long
hard hours of work, caved in one obstacle after another.

Sticking close to a woman's prime responsibility of dedicated, loving
devotion to her children, home, husband and Church, she avoided the
worldly lures of a glamorized Washington.

More often than not she played the role of both mother and father
and many a night, long after I had retired to bed, she stayed up coun-
seling with the children and slipping notes into my briefcase which
would help in my work. She was a great companion, a great mother.

Those who say that in this country one's religion should be relegated
to his private life alone and never be allowed to "intrude" on his public
activities should study the Founding Fathers. This nation has a spiritual
foundation. Its wellsprings are themselves religious. Its life is deeply
rooted in faith.

We are fortunate indeed that the spirit of religion lives on in our
leaders.

Our crisis is a crisis of faith. Our need is for greater spirituality — a
return to the basic concepts upon which this nation was established.

Certainly our civilization and our people are seemingly afraid to be
revolutionary. We are too "broadminded" to challenge what we do not
believe in. We are too afraid of being thought intolerant — uncouth —
ungentlemanly. We have become lukewarm in our beliefs.

What a sad commentary on a civilization which has given to mankind

588 GROSS FIRE

the greatest achievements and progress ever known. But it is an even
sadder commentary on those of us who call ourselves Christians, who
thus betray the ideals given to us by the Son of God Himself.

We need men and women of deep spirituality in government, men of
faith, men who acknowledge their debt to the Almighty, men whose
lives are a daily witness to the truth of the American motto — in God we
trust.

We must awaken to our responsibilities and to our opportunities.

After all the traveling of the past years, most of the country was
familiar to me. At least I knew all the types of farming. Beyond Omaha,
looking across country at the familiar areas where farming depends on
irrigation or consists of dry land pasture and wheat, I began to get a
tingling sensation — anticipation. Whether it was because of the wide-
open flat country or the nearness to home, my foot began to get a little
heavier on the accelerator. With each passing mile I found myself look-
ing for a particular and familiar landmark. I knew I'd see it in western
Wyoming.

And then, there it was — nature's masterpiece of sculpture — solid,
rugged, inspirational, inviting— the jagged, snowcapped peaks of the
Rockies. Never in the past had this sight failed to thrill me. But this
time the sensation was unusually powerful

Every turn of the wheels thereafter sang me a song of home.

There was only one more sight I longed to see — because when that
came into view then, indeed, my life would begin anew.

How good it was to be returning in the providence of the Lord, to
these mountains and valleys.

Here I had been born; here I had grown up, had formed the lasting
impressions of youth.

Here I had the advantages and blessings of the atmosphere, example,
and inspiration of an ideal Latter-day Saint home — a home where I
first learned to love the gospel — a home where I learned to know God
and His wonders, a home where prayer was an integral part of living—
a home where we had a simple but implicit faith that God truly an-
swers humble prayers and gives guidance to those who seek Him.

Here on a typical Western farm, I learned to work, with my hands,
with my head, with my heart.

Here I walked and rode to school. Here I received inspiration from
dedicated teachers — to seek and love knowledge and wisdom.
Yes, and here I met, courted, and won the hand of my wife.

To me this region was a reservoir of spiritual as well as material

THE EIGHT YEARS WITH EISENHOWER 589

blessings. Always I received new hope, new strength, new perspective,
and renewed courage when I came back to these familiar surroundings.

Here my wife and family awaited me and here I should again be
privileged to enjoy the priceless association of the Brethren in the presid-
ing councils of my Church.

Eagerly I looked for the sign, and suddenly I saw it — the six spires
of the Mormon Temple. Now indeed I was where I wanted to be!

Now at last I was ready to answer the question: Had it been worth it?
— the long hard years of work, of worry, yes and of some abuse? Worth
it?

Had I known in November 1952 what I do now, my reply to Mr.
Eisenhower would still have been the same. Yes. As Ike said, "You can't
refuse to serve America."

Appendix A

The members of the Interim Agricultural Advisory Commission were:

W. I. Myers, Chairman, poultryman and Dean, Cornell, Agricultural
College, Ithaca, N.Y.

Jesse W. Tapp, Executive Vice President, Bank of America, San Francisco,
Calif.

John H. Davis, Executive Vice President, National Wool Marketing Corp.,
Boston, Mass.

Carl Farrington, former Solicitor of USDA, Minneapolis, Minn.

Harry B. Caldwell, Master, North Carolina State Grange, Greensboro,
N.C.

Romeo Short, Vice President, American Farm Bureau Federation, Brink-
ley, Ark.

Homer Davison, Vice President, American Meat Institute, Chicago, 111.

D. W. Brooks, General Manager, Cotton Producers Assn., Atlanta, Ga.

Milo Swanton, Executive Secretary, Wisconsin Council of Agriculture,
Madison, Wise.

Bert Wood, Head, Agriculture Economics Dept, Oregon State College,
Corvallis, Oregon

Albert Mitchell, rancher and past president of American National Live-
stock Assn., Albert, N.M.

Robert R. Coker, farmer and President of Coker Seed Co., Hartsville, S.C.

Chris Milius, President, Nebraska Farmers Union, Omaha, Nebraska

Harry J. Reed, Dean, College of Agriculture, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, Ind.

When Romeo Short and John H. Davis took official positions in the De-
partment of Agriculture their places were filled by:

594 APPENDICES

Marvin McLain, farmer and member of State Board of the Iowa Farm

Bureau, Brooklyn, Iowa
Delmont L. Chapman, farmer and past president of Michigan Livestock

Improvement Assn., Newport, Mich.
Henry T. MgKnight of Vienna, Virginia, was appointed secretary.

On July 20, 1953, President Eisenhower by executive order established on
a permanent basis the National Agricultural Advisory Commission of 18
members. The Commission was charged with reviewing the policies and
administration of farm programs within the jurisdiction of the Department
of Agriculture, and with advising the Secretary of Agriculture in regard to
those programs. The executive order establishing the Advisory Commission
provided that it be bipartisan with no more than nine of the 18 members
to be of any one political party. And at least 12 members to be farmers.
Appointments were for three years and staggered so that six were appointed
each year. The Commission met at least once each quarter. Members were
appointed by the President and selections were made with a view toward
appropriate geographic representation.

Besides those mentioned above, the following persons served on the
NAAC at various times through the years:

Wiley W. Andrews, Goldsboro, N.C., a cotton and tobacco farmer, active
in the North Carolina State Grange.

Sterling Swigart, Sidney, Mont., operator of a iooo-acre wheat and
cattle farm in the Northern Great Plains.

James Hand, Jr., Rolling Fork, Miss., cotton and grain farmer, a leading
advocate of mechanized cotton farming in the Mississippi Delta, vice
president of the Mississippi Economic Council.

Don A. Stevens, Minneapolis, Minn., vice president of General Mills,
Inc., at Minneapolis.

Tom J. Hitch, Columbia, Tenn., operator of a 350-acre livestock farm
specializing in breeding Angus cattle, member of the board of directors
of several farmer cooperatives.

Mrs. Raymond Sayre, Ackworth, Iowa., farm wife, president of the As-
sociated Country Women of the World and past president of The As-
sociated Women of the American Farm Bureau Federation.

George D. Bailey, Rochester, Vt, dairy farmer, past president of the Ver-
mont Holstein Club, and director of the New England Holstein Frie-
sian Assn.

Roswell H. Anderson, Wibaux, Mont., farmer, formerly a community,
county, and State committeeman in the old AAA organization.

Arthur B. Evans, Cedarville, Ohio, farmer specializing in the breeding of
purebred Hampshire hogs and purebred Angus cattle.

Arthur C. Lawrence, Apex, N.C., farmer, master of the Olive Chapel
(N.C.) Grange, chairman of the Agricultural Policy Committee of the
North Carolina State Grange.

APPENDICES 595

Ben Swigart, Mooreland, Okla., farmer, active in local and State agri-
cultural organizations, and president of the Farmers Cooperative Grain
Dealers Assn. of Oklahoma.

Robert D. Armstrong, Monmouth, 111., grain and livestock farmer, past
president of the Warren County Farm Bureau.

Harry J. Beernink, Seattle, Wash., manager, Washington Farmers Co-
operative, member of the board and executive committee of the Na-
tional Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the American Institute of Co-
operation, and the Association of Washington Industries.

W. Aubrey Calloway, Bosco, La., owner and operator of 1450 acre farm
in Ouachita Parish, La., member of the Louisiana Crop Improvement
Assn., Louisiana Cotton Breeders Assn., and past president of Loui-
siana Hybrid Seed Corn Assn.

O. B. Jesness, St. Paul, Minn., head of the Department of Agricultural
Economics, University of Minnesota.

James J. Love, Quincy, Florida, farmer, chairman of the Florida State
Committee on the Agricultural Adjustment Administration and its
successor agencies from 1933 unt ^ I 95 2 »

Alvin Wiese, Eagle Lake, Texas, rice grower, past director of Eagle Lake
Division of American Rice Growers Cooperative Association.

Robert K. Buck, Dallas County, Iowa, operator of 800 acre grain and
livestock farm, member of USDA's Production Economics Advisory
Committee.

Forrest Stamper, Plainville, Kansas, wheat grower and cattle rancher,
served in Kansas State Legislature 1939 to 1953.

Hassil Eli Sghenck, Boone County, Indiana, farmer since 1916, past
director of American Farm Bureau Federation and member of Farm
Bureau Executive Committee.

Flint MgRoberts, Monticello, Missouri, livestock and grain farmer, mem-
ber of Missouri Atomic Energy Commission; director Missouri Live-
stock Association.

Quentin Reynolds, Longmeadow, Massachusetts, retired farmer; for-
mer general manager Eastern States Farmers Exchange; past president
Nat'l Council of Farmer Cooperatives.

Wilmer V. Smith, Wilson, Texas, vice president Plains Cotton Growers
Association; member board of directors Central Bank of Cooperatives.

Merrill N. Warnick, Pleasant Grove, Utah, dairy farmer and Holstein
breeder; former president American Dairy Association.

Appendix B

Following are the names and positions of the USDA personnel with
whom I worked most closely. Some served for part of the eight years; others,
such as True Morse, remained throughout.

True D. Morse, Under Secretary; J. Earl Coke, Assistant Secretary;
John H. Davis, Assistant Secretary; Romeo E. Short, Assistant Secretary;
Earl L. Butz, Assistant Secretary; Ervin L. Peterson, Assistant Secretary;
James A, McConnell, Assistant Secretary; Marvin L. MgLain, Assistant
Secretary; Don Paarlberg, Assistant Secretary; Clarence L. Miller,
Assistant Secretary; Clarence M. Ferguson, Assistant Secretary; Rich-
ard D, Aplin, Administrative Assistant Secretary; Ralph S, Roberts,
Administrative Assistant Secretary; Kenneth L» Scott, Director, Agri-
cultural Credit Services; Karl D. Loos, Solicitor; Robert L. Farrington,
General Counsel; Frank A. Barrett, General Counsel; Thomas J. Flavin,
Judicial Officer; Daken K, Broadhead, Executive Assistant to the Secre-
tary; Lorenzo N. Hoopes, Executive Assistant to the Secretary; Milan D.
Smith, Executive Assistant to the Secretary; Miller F. Shurtleff, Ex-
ecutive Assistant to the Secretary; Whitney Gillilland, Assistant to the
Secretary; Frederick W. Babbel, Assistant to the Secretary; Jack C Davis,
Assistant to the Secretary; Jack Z. Anderson, Assistant to the Secretary;
Clyde A. Wheeler, Assistant to the Secretary; Charles Figy, Assistant to
the Secretary; Miles Horst, Assistant to the Secretary; Robert D. Mc-
Millen, Assistant to the Secretary; Louis B, Rock, Jr., Assistant to the
Secretary; Bert M. Tollefson, Jr., Assistant to the Secretary; Martin
Sorkin, Assistant to the Secretary; Howard H. Gordon, Administrator,
Production and Marketing Administrations; Earl M. Hughes and Walter
C Berger, Administrators, Commodity Stabilization Service; Paul V.
Kepner, Administrator, Federal Extension Service; Oris V, Wells, Ad-
ministrator, Agricultural Marketing Service; Byron T. Shaw, Administra-

APPENDICES 597

tor, Agricultural Research Service; Joseph G, Knapp, Administrator,
Farmer Cooperative Service; W, G. Lodwick, Gwynn Garnett and Max
Myers, Administrators, Foreign Agricultural Service; R. B. McLeaish
and Kermit H. Hansen, Administrators, Farmers Home Administration;
Ancher Nelson and David A. Hamil, Administrators, Rural Electrifica-
tion Administration; Richard E. McArdle, Chief, Forest Service; Donald
A. Williams, Administrator, Soil Conservation Service; Paul M. Koger,
Administrator, Agricultural Conservation Program Service; J, BL Mehl and
Rodger R. Kauffman, Administrators, Commodity Exchange Authority;
Charles S. Laidlaw and Frank N. McCartney, Managers, Federal Crop
Insurance Corporation; MacHenry Schafer and Ernest C, Betts, Jr.,
Directors, Office of Personnel; Joseph C. Wheeler and Charles L.
Grant, Directors, Office of Budget and Finance; R. Lyle Webster, Direc*
tor, Office of Information.

Appendix C

The score sheet in i960 showed an increase in farmer's assets of about
$10,000 per farm in eight years.

It showed that only five of some 250 commodities produced commercially
were still subject to government production controls.

It showed that the average of prices received by farmers in December
i960 was higher than in December 1954, when price supports for the basic
crops were still at 90 per cent of parity.

It showed that 15 of the 21 commodities under price support were sell-
ing at, or above, their support levels.

Only 12 farm commodities were currently in government storage. Ten
others that had been in government inventory in 1953 were no longer in
our hands.

Despite record crops in 1958, 1959 and 1960, government surplus hold-
ings were less than they had been in November 1959 — the all-time peak.
Whereas the surplus had grown by $4,600,000,000 in 1953 and 1954, only
$3,000,000,000 had been added in the past six years — and most of this in-
crease occurred before our policies could begin to take effect on a limited
basis with the 1955 crop year.

Since January 1, 1953, we had moved out of government hands ap-
proximately $22,000,000,000 worth of government-owned farm commodi-
ties.

The score sheet showed we had cleaned out nearly all of the dairy surplus
and had cut the cotton carryover in half between 1956 and i960.

It showed that we had made limited progress toward better price sup-
port programs through the Agricultural Act of 1954 — the Act of 1956 —
and the Act of 1958. But we had failed dismally in our efforts to secure
legislation for wheat.

We had made progress in extending to farm people legitimate benefits
hitherto long denied them.

APPENDICES 599

Social Security had been extended to farm families and farm workers.

And I am immensely proud to be able to say that the Rural Development
Program, started by us in 1955— the first really concerted effort to deal
with the special needs of low-income farmers — was by 1961 operating or in
the planning stage in 350 counties in 39 states and Puerto Rico.

The score sheet showed that during these eight years farmers had ap-
plied more conservation to their farms than in any similar period in history.

The Special School Milk Program inaugurated by us in 1954, by i960 was
operating in 83,000 school and child-care institutions where nearly 2,400,-
000,000 half -pints of milk helped improve diets of our children.

Under the Food for Peace Program, an outstanding record was made in
donating surplus food to deserving people at home and abroad. In i960
over 20,000,000 U.S. citizens and some 62,000,000 people in 92 foreign
countries received such donations.

Between mid- 1953 and mid- 1960, the following agricultural export rec-
ords were established:

Greatest export value for any seven-year period in history — $26,500,000,000.

Greatest export volume for any single year (1959-60).

Greatest export value for any single year (1956-57) — $4,700,000,000.

Greatest value of agricultural exports moving under special programs to
aid underdeveloped countries (1956-57) — $2,000,000,000.

Shipments of fresh, frozen and canned poultry to foreign countries in-
creased more than sixfold from 1955 to i960 — to a $50,000,000 busi-
ness.

By i960 demand for American poultry had developed so that no less than
60 countries were customers, including such distant places as Japan
and Hong Kong.

As my term of office ended, U.S. farmers were doing more to help feed
and clothe the world's people than ever before.

The score sheet showed that appropriations for agricultural research
were nearly tripled between 1953 and i960. A large part of these funds
was being employed to expand markets and find new uses for our farm
abundance, and to develop new crops for current needs.

Utilization research on wash-and-wear fabrics alone had already devel-
oped outlets for more than 800,000 bales of cotton per year — 800,000 bales
that would otherwise have had no outlets and would have piled up in
government hands.

With detergents replacing soap, we sought ways to use surplus animal
fats. A new method for using fats in livestock feeds had built a market
that was, in i960, absorbing about 500,000,000 pounds of fats annually,
with still greater use ahead.

A method of producing chemicals from animal fats for use in plastics

600 APPENDICES

was absorbing some 40 million pounds of fats each year, and the demand
was increasing.

We are going to see more agricultural raw materials used in plastics.
This rapidly growing industry in i960 provided a little over 6,500,000,000
pounds of plastics a year. It may hit 10,000,000,000 pounds by 1965.

Utilization research had built markets for fruits and vegetables. Dehy-
drated mashed potatoes, already being sold both as granules and as flakes,
were taking more than 20,000,000 bushels of potatoes a year. We were
well on our way in developing similar products for sweet potatoes.

Markets can be further expanded for wheat and other food grains — if
research is stimulated to do its job. Agriculture can look for possible use
of 500,000,000 additional bushels of cereal grains annually by 1975 — part
of it in larger consumption of food and part in various industrial outlets.

As for new industrial outlets, we had our eyes on the 3,000,000,000
pounds of chemical substances used annually in synthetic rubber, plastics,
industrial finishes and coatings, pesticides and cleaning agents. Surely agri-
culture can provide more than the present 2 per cent of the chemicals going
into these products.

Research, we know, can help crack export markets, too. Two of Japan's
most important foods — miso and tofu — were normally prepared from whole
soybeans. With the cooperation of two Japanese scientists, we developed a
new process for preparing these foods which overcomes characteristics of
tLS. soybeans that the Japanese found objectionable.

I cite these research accomplishments and potential because they play
so large a role in the conservative approach to the farm problem.

One of the basic differences between the conservative and the liberal is
that the liberal despairs of the nation's ability to expand markets enough
to use the abundance agriculture will produce in a free market. So he urges
a return to more and more restrictions and controls. He speaks in terms of
controlling bushels, pounds, or bales of commodities marketed.

The conservative believes markets can be sufficiently expanded through
research, vigorous marketing and greater freedom for farmers to make their
own decisions. He points to the 1954-60 record of surplus reduction in milk,
cotton, oilseeds and a half dozen other commodities to back up his thesis.

It is my conservative belief that the farmer's best hope of getting his fair
share of the national income is through efficient production — balanced
production — and better marketing — made possible through research, edu-
cation, cooperation and free initiative.

He will not get it out of government.

He will not get it out of acreage allotments and marketing quotas.

He will not get it by government price fixing, and he never has.

I believe a solid foundation has been laid for a prosperous, expanding,
and free agriculture.

During these eight years, greater advances in agricultural productivity

APPENDICES 601

were achieved than in any similar period of U.S. history. Perhaps we can
best sum up this agricultural progress by this one sentence: In 1952 one
farm worker on the average provided food and fiber for 17 persons; in
i960 he provided for about 25 persons.

When we left office, we bequeathed to our successors, along with our
sincere good wishes, this 5-point program of recommendations for future
farm policy:

First the "Food for Peace" Program should be expanded. Food can serve
humanitarian needs in foreign lands, aid in economic development,
and promote the cause of peace and freedom.

Second, programs of research to develop new foreign and domestic markets,
including new industrial uses, for our farm products should be vigor-
ously pushed forward.

Third, laws should be enacted to improve the price support mechanism
by providing levels of price support that will allow farm commodities
to move into regular marketing channels, and at the same time afford
adequate price protection.

Fourth, the use of farmland should be further adjusted in accordance with
needs by such a program as an expanded Conservation Reserve.

Fifth, the Rural Development Program should be emphasized and expanded
as rapidly as is feasible.
Based on a lifetime of experience as a farmer and in farm related activi-
ties, I believe these are the actions we need to serve the best interests of our

farm people, the nation, and the free world.

Appendix D

GENERAL STATEMENT ON AGRICULTURAL POLICY

Ezra Toft Benson
Secretary of Agriculture

The supreme test of any government policy, agricultural or other, should
be "How will it affect the character, morale, and well-being of our people?"
We need — the world needs — a strong America in the critical years ahead.

Freedom is a God-given, eternal principle vouchsafed to us under the
Constitution. It must be continually guarded as something more precious
than life itself. It is doubtful if any man can be politically free who depends
upon the state for sustenance. A completely planned and subsidized econ-
omy weakens initiative, discourages industry, destroys character, and de-
moralizes the people.

Rural people are a bulwark against all that is aimed at weakening and
destroying our American way of life. The future of agriculture and the
preservation of a sound economic system depend upon the vigorous re-
emphasis of the principles, benefits, and values of private competitive enter-
prise. No group in America is in a better position to contribute to this need
than those who live on farms. Agriculture is a basic industry. We recognize
that agricultural policy is only a part, but a vital part, of our total national
policy.

With the development of mechanized commercial agriculture, the family
farm has become closely geared into a complex interdependent industrial
economy. There is no hope for peace, growth, or prosperity if each eco-
nomic group is seeking its own advantage to the detriment of others. To
make their best contribution to national welfare, farmers must have the full
cooperation of industry and labor, because each is dependent upon the ef-
fective performance of the other economic groups.

APPENDICES 603

The objective of agriculture is to provide consumers with high quality
food and fiber at reasonable prices, improve the productivity of basic land
resources, and contribute to higher levels of human nutrition and of living.
The reward for these contributions must be an income that will provide
the opportunity for a constantly rising level of living for farm people fairly
related to that of other large productive groups of the nation.

Our agricultural policy should aim to obtain in the market place full
parity prices of farm products and parity incomes far farm people so that
farmers will have freedom to operate efficiently and to adjust their produc-
tion to changing consumer demands in an expanding economy. This ob-
jective cannot be assured by government programs alone. It can be achieved
only with a steady level of prices, high employment and production, and
rising output per worker in our total national economy.

The most important method of promoting the long-time welfare of farm
people and the nation is the support of adequate programs of research and
education in the production, processing, marketing, and utilization of farm
products and in problems of rural living. This program, with freedom, has
enabled farmers to do their full share in providing the American people
with the highest level of living in the world. Moderate further balanced
expansion is necessary to enable farmers to provide an even better diet for
our rapidly increasing population.

The development of modern agriculture, which has made possible these
great achievements, has placed the family farm in a vulnerable economic
position because farm prices and income rise and fall more rapidly than
farm costs. Hence, the guarding of farm levels of living requires a program
of storage and price supports to help to assure stability of income. These
supports should be designed not only to serve the welfare of farmers, but
also — in the widest national interest — to prevent disaster to the farm-pro-
ducing plan and the national food supply.

Price support laws will be carried out faithfully in every respect. There
are mandatory price supports at 90 per cent of parity on the so-called basic
commodities for 1953 and 1954. Other laws provide for supports on other
farm products. While enforcing these laws, there will be formulated long-
term programs which will more fully and effectively accomplish our over-
all objectives.

Price supports should provide insurance against disaster to the farm-
producing plant and help to stabilize national food supplies. But price
supports which tend to prevent production shifts toward a balanced supply
in terms of demand and which encourage uneconomic production and re-
sult in continuing heavy surpluses and subsidies should be avoided. Our
efforts should be to re-orient our present national policies and programs so
that they will contribute to the development of a prosperous and produc-
tive agriculture within our free enterprise system.

It is generally agreed that there is danger in the undue concentration of

604 APPENDICES

power in the Federal Government. Too many Americans are calling on
Washington to do for them what they should be willing to do for themselves.

Individual freedom and citizenship responsibility depend upon the prin-
ciple of helping the individual to help himself. It is possible through in-
dividual and group action to solve many problems and achieve objectives
locally with a minimum of federal assistance and control.

The principles of economic freedom are applicable to farm problems.
We seek a minimum of restrictions on farm production and marketing to
permit the maximum of dependence on free market prices as the best guides
to production and consumption. Farmers should not be placed in a posi-
tion of working for government bounty rather than producing for a free
market. However, the ability to avoid restrictions on agriculture depends in
part on the willingness of other economic groups to adopt policies that
permit flexible and dynamic adjustments.

Our agricultural policy will emphasize the further development of both
domestic and foreign markets for farm products. We will seek ways and
means of improving the operation of free markets. We envision increased
efficiency in marketing and distribution as well as in production, more
complete crop and market reports, improved grading and inspection serv-
ices, and an expanded educational program for better human nutrition.
In these ways, as in others, we can serve the best interests of consumers as
well as farmers.

Inefficiency should not be subsidized in agriculture or any other segment
of our economy. Relief programs should be operated as such — not as an aid
to the entire agricultural industry. Emergency programs should be termi-
nated as soon as the emergency is over.

No agricultural program should be manipulated to serve partisan politi-
cal purposes.

In view of these facts, it seems important that a very thorough study,
analysis, and evaluation should be made of every public agricultural pro-
gram now in operation to ascertain if it is actually needed, and, if needed,
whether it can be reduced^ combined, decentralized, coordinated, or other-
wise improved in the interest of agricultural and national welfare. Facts
developed from such studies should be placed before Congress — the policy-
making body of our government — for appropriate action.

The Department of Agriculture, established originally "to acquire and dif-
fuse useful information on agricultural subjects," is a great and valuable in-
stitution. This Department, employing highly trained scientists and other
devoted public servants, in its responsibility to carry out the policies estab-
lished by Congress, should improve its organization in accordance with
sound principles of public administration and practice, strict efficiency and
economy. In the various states there are Land-Grant colleges with their ex-
periment stations and extension services as well as the state departments of
Agriculture, each having its appropriate area of service. Each of the services

APPENDICES 605

for agriculture, now provided by the government, should be re-examined to
determine first whether it can better be met publicly or privately.

If the service appears to be a public responsibility, then it should be de-
termined whether or not the objectives can better be accomplished through
local or state agencies, or through federal-state cooperation, or through
Federal agencies.

In the administration of this Department, the guiding purpose will be
to strengthen the individual integrity, freedom, and the very moral fiber of
each citizen. We must establish a climate which will further promote, culti-
vate, and release the great reservoir of dynamic latent energy of every in-
dividual in this great nation. As Secretary, I will seek the best possible ad-
vice from members of the Congress and the entire agricultural industry
through conferences with farm organization leaders, advisory committees,
and individuals regarding existing and proposed policies and programs.

Appendix E

"STRAIGHT TALK"

Tom Anderson
Editor and Publisher, Farm and Ranch magazine

Imagine getting your greatest spiritual experience in atheistic Russia! We
had just left Moscow's citadel of atheism, fantastically ugly Red Square,
where thousands of subservients come daily to worship the incarnation of
history's foremost mummies, Vladimir "The Body" Lenin and "good 01*
Joe" Stalin, their carcasses perfectly preserved in their glass showcase in the
red marble mausoleum. They're the only well-dressed people in Moscow —
all dressed up and no place to go.

Stalin had pronounced repeatedly: "Lenin is God . . . The party cannot
be neutral toward religion. Anti-religious propaganda is a means by which
the complete liquidation of the reactionary clergy must be brought about"

The Russian "God," Lenin, stated: "Religion is a kind of spiritual gin in
which the slaves of capital drown their human shape and their claims to
any decent human life . . . Marxism is materialism . . * We deny all mo-
rality taken from superhuman or nonclass conceptions , . . Atheism is an
integral part of Marxism . . . The materialist gives a more important place
to materialism and nature, while relegating God and all the philosophical
rabble who believe in Him to the sewer and manure heap . . . Down with
religion. Long live Atheism."

Atheism or Starvation

Sunday Schools in Russia are not permitted to exist. All "education" be-
longs to the state— and so do the children. Six days a week for 40 years the

APPENDICES 6 y

children have been taught atheism in school. It would be inconsistent to let
them be taught about God in a Sunday School!

A person can lose his job or be demoted for church attendance. Starting
next year young people have to either be confirmed in church or join "youth
confirmation" (Communist) groups. If they choose the church, they won't
be able to get a job when they're old enough to work. Most people under
60 have sold out God for jobs, security, convenience. Or maybe they've
simply concluded that co-existence, with atheism, is better than no ex-
istence.

Our Intourist guide had informed us that intelligent people don't go to
church; that religion, which they refer to in the past tense, is a fairy story.
With a straight face the beguiling guide had told us that churches were
closed because the people no longer wanted them open; they had "learned
better." In spite of this unsolicited wisdom, we drove from the ornate,
atheistic Kremlin to a little out-of-the-way faded stucco Baptist Church on
a narrow cobblestone street. The Central Baptist Church, one of the few
open-for-business churches left in Moscow was playing to its usual three-
times-a-week standing-room-only crowd of about 1000.

Behind the pulpit glowed a stained-glass window inscribed with "Bog est
lyubov (God is love) ." It glowed quite differently from the diffused orange-
colored light which bathes the carcasses of the enshrined killers on display
in Red Square.

Every face in the old sanctuary gaped incredulously as our obviously-
American group was led down the aisle. They grabbed for our hands as we
proceeded to our pews which were gladly vacated for our unexpected visit.
Their wrinkled old faces looked at us pleadingly. They reached out to touch
us almost as one would reach out for the last final caress of one's most-
beloved just before the casket is lowered. They were in misery and yet a
light shone through the misery. They gripped our hands like frightened
children,

A member of our group was unexpectedly called to the pulpit. His voice
choked with emotion, he preached a sermon of love and faith, hope and
truth.

"I believe very firmly in prayer," he said. "It is possible to reach out and
tap that unseen power which gives us strength and such an anchor in time
of need.

"Be not afraid. Keep this commandment: Love one another. Love all
mankind. Truth will endure. Time is on the side of truth." Thus spake Ezra
Taft Benson, Mormon Apostle and Secretary of Agriculture.

The Secretary's wife and two beautiful daughters raptly drank in his
words, with tears streaming. "God lives, I know that He lives; that Jesus is
the Christ, the Redeemer of the World. We are eternal beings."

As each sentence was translated for the audience by the Russian minister
the women removed their handkerchiefs from their heads and waved them

608 APPENDICES

like a mother bidding permanent goodbye to her only son. Their heads
nodded vigorously as they moaned, "ja, ja, ja!" (yes, yes, yes!).

As their gnarled hands folded in fervent prayer, it made you think of
the ancient Christians about to be thrown to the lions. Most were old
women. The old can attend church. They have no jobs to lose. They can
"afford" to go to church. There were a handful of teenagers, one of whom
stood beside me. I wished mightily that we could break the language barrier
and talk. A youth with the courage to oppose history's most godless dictator-
ship to worship God!

Cynical newspaper correspondents who'd griped about a "command per-
formance" in church with Benson, stood there crying openly. I was able to
reach many conclusions in Russia, including the inscription I want for my
tombstone: "I'd rather be here than in Russia."

The Last Believers

These people have what has been described by some bubble-heads as
"freedom of religion." It is freedom to live out their last few years without
being shot in the back of the neck; freedom to go on existing in a living hell
under a forced choice between God and their own families.

These old souls live by faith alone, unlike the Communist high priests
who're backed by the all-powerful state and the firing squad.

The Communist plan is that when these "last believers" die off, religion
will die with them. What the atheists don't know is that God can't be
stamped out either by legislated atheism or firing squad. This Methodist
back-slider who occasionally grumbles about having to go to church, stood
crying unashamedly, throat lumped, and chills running from spine to toes.
It was the most heart-rending and most inspiring scene I've ever witnessed.
With heavy hearts we left to rejoin the smug, smart-aleck atheist guides
who took us to the church but refused to go in.

As we filed out they sang with all their hearts, "God Be With You 'Til
We Meet Again." And all knew we never would — on this earth. We also
knew that some day, somehow, the greatest force in the world, love of God,
will destroy this organized religion of hate.

INDEX

ABC network, 204

AFBF. See American Farm Bureau

Federation
AFL, 189, 223, 233, 234; -CIO, 412
AVCO Corporation, 14, 25
Aalborg, Denmark, 462, 464
Abernethy, Thomas G., 206, 524
Able and Baker (monkeys), 419
Acheson, Dean, 332
Acreage Reserve, 291 ff., 323-24, 341,

35S, 383, 4°4
Adams, Sherman, 152, 163, 314, 315,

382; on Benson, 554; Benson meets,

25; and election campaign, 218;

during Ike's illness, 272, 274, 280 ff.
Adams, Mrs. Sherman, 199
Adenauer, Konrad, 442
Adkins, Bertha, 328
Adzhubei, Alexei, 470, 471
Aesop, 181
Africa, 377, 497
Agricultural Act of 1948, 74
Agricultural Act of 1949, 185, 351
Agricultural Act of 1954, 211, 244,

254-55? 3 l 5> 3 l6 > 320; Ike on,

290
Agricultural Act of 1956, 323-24
Agricultural Act of 1958, 404-5 ff.
Agricultural Advisory Commission, 30,

31, 61, 88, 259, 284; criticized, 52;

evaluates suggestions, 157; final

meeting, 562; members listed, 593-

95; suggestions for, 22-23, 27
Agricultural Conservation Program, 52,

165
Agricultural Marketing Service, 97, 120,

152, 493

Agricultural Research Service, 93, 97,
120

Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act (P.L. 480), 238, 247,
255, 266, 351, 380; becomes law,
211; extending, 347, 358, 432

Agriculture, Department of (USDA)
(See also exports; price supports;
specific agencies, commodities, pro-
grams, etc.) : establishment, duties,
20-21, 179, 604-5; ^d Ladejinsky,
226-29; and patronage, 107 ff.; per-
sonnel listing, 596-97; personnel
relations, 95-96; reorganization,

24 ff., 48, 52-54, 97-98, 103-4, n6,
126, 154-55, 225 ff., 450; and
speeches, 117, 119 ff.; time-wasting
in, 87-88

Agriculture, Secretary of (See also
Agriculture, Department of; Ben-
son, Ezra Taft) : and campaigns,
332

Agriculture Research Ctr. See Belts-
ville, Maryland

Aiken, George D., 25, 74, 106, 159, 163-
64, 208 ff., 313, 353; and Benson
hearings, 39, 153, 183; calls con-
fidential luncheon, 307; and Con-
ference of Western Senators, 90;
helps on veto message, 322; and
strategy, 192, 193; and USDA re-
organization, 104, 154, 155; vote
maneuvers, 311

Alaska, 419

Albuquerque, N.M., 156

Alcorn, Meade, Jr., 350, 353, 386, 406

Alessandri Rodriguez, Jorge, 548

Alger, Bruce, 106

Allen, Fred, 88

Allen, Leo, 159, 402

Allott, Gordon, 504

Ail-Union Academy of Ag. Sciences, 479

Alvarado, Calif., 434

Amarillo, Tex., 128, 243

American Dental Association, 518

American Farm Bureau Federation, 156,
184, 310, 502, 525, 562 (See also
specific states); and Belcher bill,
460; FDR and, 9; and freeze bill,
395; Kline of, 51; tape recordings
for, 164; and veto, 322

American Institute of Cooperation, 14

American Meat Institute, 309

American National Cattlemen's Associa-
tion, 90

American National Livestock Associa-
tion, 154

American Warehousemen's Association,
118

Ames, Iowa, 84 ff., 329-30

Amussen, Carl C, 463-64

Andersen, H. Carl, 25, 74, 75, 164; at
Benson hearings, 99, 100, 178, 444,

445
Andersen, Hans Christian, 463

6io

Anderson, C. Elmer, 66

Anderson, Clinton P., 68, 104, 106, 183,

379, 382; at Benson's hearing, 39;

on flexible system, 165; on laws,

154; re-elected, 220; resigns Ag.

Committee, 315; and Strauss, 458
Anderson, Jack Z., 313, 316, 358
Anderson, Robert B., 511, 527, 549,

566
Anderson, Roswell H., 594
Anderson, Sigurd, 104-5
Anderson, Tom, 407, 606-8
Anderson, Victor E., 513
Andresen, August H., 25, 186, 382
Andrews, Wiley W., 594
Andrews Air Force Base, 468
Antoine's (New Orleans), 357
Arends, Leslie C, 159, 233-34, 374~75>

402, 451
Argentia, Newfoundland, 472
Argentina, 26, 223, 547-48
Arias Espinosa, Ricardo, 240-41
Aristides, 396
Arizona, 156, 412
Arkansas, 310, 311, 343
Arlington National Cemetery, 442
Armstrong, Robert D., 595
Am, Edward F., 128
Asia. See Far East; specific countries
Asmussen, Carl, 463-64
Assoc. Press, 41, 384-85, 489, 545, 583
Atlanta, Ga., 26
Atomic Energy Bill, 209
Atomic Energy Commission, 458
Auckland, New Zealand, 561
Augusta, Ga., 130, 317, 338
Austin, Tex., 127
Australia, 26, 560-61
Avery, William H., 414

Babbel, Frederick W., 19, 23, 25, 27

Bailey, Charles, 405, 514

Bailey, George D., 594

Ballif, Serge Louis, 263-64

Baltimore Sun, 583

Barley, 237

Barrett, Frank, 208

Batista, Fulgencio, 239

Bean, Louis H., 108

Beardsley, William S., 78

Beef, 65, 91-92, 129, 309, See also

cattle
Beernink, Harry J., 595

INDEX

Beets, 433-35* 4 8l ~82

Belcher, Page, 106, 208, 460

Belgium, 372, 534, 535

Belgrade, Yugoslavia, 473

Beloit, Wis., 411

Beltsville, Md., 124, 263, 467, 468-70

Ben-Gurion, David, 368, 369, 537-38

Ben-Gurion, Mrs. David (Paula), 368,
537-38

Bennett, Wallace F., 153, 543

Benson, Barbara (later Walker, Mrs.
Robert H.), 28, 29, 137, 142, 199-
200, 246; in accident, 82, "83, 86;
and limousine, 140; marriage, 269-
70; on TV show, 215

Benson, Beth, 206, 209, 270, 417, 518,
586; at Cabinet wives' luncheon,
199; on Christmas, 28, 29, 222, 285;
at concert for Ike, 413; and egg-
throwing, 362; on 4th of July, 251;
graduates jr. high, 457; meets par-
ents at airport, 370-71; on mom's
new clothes, 45; overseas trip, 534,
537,538; on TV show, 215

Benson, Beverly (Mrs. James M.
Parker), 251-52, 417, 418, 518, 562,
586; and Bible class, 456-57; at
Cabinet wives' luncheon, 199; on
Christmas, 28, 285, 286; at Con-
gressional hearing, 385; at conven-
tion, 532; enters college, 269; and
Khrushchev visit, 468, 470; meets
Ike at airport, 246; music lessons,
142; overseas, 364, 472, 478, 484;
on Southern trip, 357; on Thanks-
giving, 374

Benson, Bonnie (Mrs. Lowell Madsen),
28, 270, 285, 417, 562, 586; award
to, 251; at Cabinet wives' luncheon,
199; lessons, 142; overseas, 364, 472,
478; on Southern trip, 357; on TV
show, 215-16

Benson, Ezra Taft, (1953) 43- I 59>
(1954) 163-222, (1955) 225-86,
(1956) 289-342, (1957) 345-76,
(*95 8 ) 379~4 l8 > (*959) 421-96,
(i960) 499-568; on accomplish-
ments, 581-89; appointed, 3-27
passim; begins work, 47-48 ff.; and
Cabinet (See Cabinet); and candi-
dacy, 407-8, 518-19, 544~4 6 ; credo >
569-81; early life, 15-17, 5 6 > 83-85*
261-62; to Europe, 260-67, 37 off -j

INDEX

6ll

462-65, 472-77, 533-36; family
relations (See Benson family);
family to Washington, 138-43; to
Far East, 364 ff., 555-61; 1st news
conference, 60-63; gets assistants,
30-31; hearings (See under House;
Senate); illnesses, 207, 417-18, 490-
91 ff.; to Latin America, 237-42,
547-49; to Middle East, 364 ff.,
536-38; and Mortimer Snerd, 235-
36; performs marriages, 19, 30, 271;
and personnel relations, 95-96; and
prayers, 33, 36-38, 48, 49, 59-60,
246; relaxation, 81-82, 137-38, 209
(See also Benson family); religion,
345-4^ 439-42, 485-88, 586-87
(See also Mormon Church;
prayers); to Russia, 477-88; ser-
mons, 439-42, 486-88, 607-8;
speeches, 117-22 (See also specific
groups, places) ; sworn in, 46; wife's
accident, 82-83 ff.
Benson, Mrs. Ezra Taft (Flora), 69,
120, i73-74> 250 fL, 285, 299, 334,
360, 413, 451, 454*^ 5 00 > 585 ff-J
and Barbara, 269, 271, 336; and
Benson's appointment, 9, 13; and
Cabinet wives' luncheon, 199 ff.; to
Camp David, 518-19; at conven-
tions, 332, 532; and Dewey debate,
5; early life, 83-85, 329-30; at
Inauguration, 44-50 passim; in-
jured, 82 ff.; and Khrushchev visit,
468; at Marriotts', 209, 222, 417;
meets Ike at airport, 246; and milk
dispensers, 187; moves to Washing-
ton, 1381!; Mrs. Eisenhower on,
275; to Ocean City, 206; and PTA,
362-63; in Salt Lake, 28-29; as
speaker, 326-28; and TV show,
214 ff.; at testimonial dinner, 563;
on trade trips, 237, 239, 260 ff.,
364 fL, 463 fL, 472 ff., 490, 534 ff.,
559; and U Nu, 245
Benson, Flora. See Benson, Mrs. Ezra

Taft
Benson, Flora Beth. See Benson, Beth
Benson, Mr. and Mrs. George T., 15 ff,
Benson, Lela. See Benson, Mrs. Mark
Benson, Mark, 9, 86, 139, 200, 532,
586; bishopric, 357; on Christmas,
28, 285, 418; entertains Ike, 222;

letter quoted, 455; on TV show,
215; wedding, 29-30

Benson, Mrs* Mark (Lela), 86, 200,
222, 357, 532, 586; on Christmas,
285; wedding, 29-30

Benson, May, 468, 519, 585

Benson, Orval, 56, 83

Benson, Reed, 8-9, 43 ff., 210, 270, 519,
585-86; at Cabinet wives 5 luncheon,
200; at Christmas, 28, 285, 418; and
Dixon, 218; on drought tour, 127;
entertains Ike, 222; father's birth-
day, 209; and Khrushchev visit,
468, 470-71; letter quoted, 454-55;
mother's accident, 83; plays horse-
shoes, 139; in politics, 325-26, 332,
334> 532; and TV show, 214, 215

Benson, Mrs. Reed (May), 468, 519,

5B5
Benson, Serge B., 17
Benson, Steven Reed, 209
Benson family, 27-30, 137-43, 250-53,

284-86, 456-57, 562-63, 585-86

(See also individual members) ; TV

show, 213-16
"Benson Farm Sale," 333
Bentley, Alvin M., 196
Bergen, Edgar, 44, 235-36
Berlin, 264, 265-66, 474-75
Biltmore Hotel, 13, 18, 23
Bird, John, 38

Blair, William M., 184-85, 515
Blair House, 245, 470, 563
Blake, Rhea, 23
Bolshoi Theater, 479-80
Bonn, Germany, 463, 535
Bowles, Chester, 529
Boy Scouts, 454-56
Brannan, Charles F., 19-26 passim, 57,

98, 179. 332, 379; reorganization

plan, 103
Brannan Plan, 20, 179, 188, 216, 397ff-J

in Democratic platform, 331, 530
Brattle St. Unitarian Church, 346
Braun, Ted, 196
Brazil, 341, 547
Brazilia, 547
Bribes, 309

Bricker, John W., 106, 132
Bridges, Styles, 25, 81, 106, 124, 159
Brigham Young U., 8, 84, 199, 269, 357
Broadhead, Daken K., 226
Brody, Clark, 69

6l2

Brooklyn Dodgers, 41

Brooks, D. W., 26, 593

Brossard, Dr. and Mrs. Edgar B., 370

Brown Palace Hotel, 274

Brownell, Herbert, Jr., 4, 34, 36, 271,

272, 280; and working hours, 53
Brussels, Belgium, 535
Bryner, U. R., 82-83, 138
Buck, Robert K., 595
Budapest, Hungary, 336-37
Budge, Hamer H., 106
Budget, Federal, 354, 422-24 ft., 527 ft\,

574-75

Buffalo, N.Y., 490

Bulganin, Nikolai, 245, 377

Bunyan, John, 16

Burdick, Quentin N., 517

Burke, Edmund, 552-53

Burlingame, Lloyd, 220

Burma, 245

Bumick, Harry, 69

Burning Tree Country Club, 1 24

Burns, Robert, 260

Butler, Karl, 13-14, 23, 25, 38, 69

Butler University, 216

Butter, 76-77, 171, 178, 187, 320, 386;
in France, 424; surplus sold, 255 if.

Butz, Earl L., 23, 228, 307, 328, 353,
358; and CBS show, 303-4; and
Fulbright vote, 310, 311; notes to
Benson, 273, 351; and telegrams on
hogs, 281

Byrd, Harry, 106, 164

CBS, 190, 304, 400

CCC. See Commodity Credit Corpora-
tion

CIO, 78, 223, 232, 233, 234; AFL- ,
412

Cabinet, 70, 77, I33~37, i5&-59> *93>
352, 510, 549 (See also specific
departments, secretaries); and aid
to education, 422-23; and cam-
paigns, 332; clergy in, 345-46; and
congressmen, 98; and cotton-export
problem, 246-49; during Ike's ill-
ness, 271-72 ff., 282-84; 1st meet-
ing, 48-49; and gas bill, 303; glass
bowl to Ike, 189; and Ike's princi-
ples, 527-28; and Inauguration
ceremonies, 44 ff.; and lack of time,
87; last meeting, 566-68; "9 mil-
lionaires . . . ,"31; Nixon presides,

INDEX

135, 24A 271-72, 278, 511-12;
Nixons entertain, 457; and patron-
age, no, 112; and prayers, 33, 36-
3®> 49> 59-6o, 246, 312; pre-In-
auguration meeting, 32-38; replace-
ments, 135-36, 345, 566; split ru-
mored, 278; testimonial dinner,
563-65; wives' luncheon, 99-201

Cairo, Egypt, 537

Calaboza, Venezuela, 239

Calcutta, India, 366

Caldwell, Harry B., 593

Calgary, Canada, 567

California, 21-22, 198, 411. See also
specific towns

California Beet Growers Ass'n, 433

Calloway, W. Aubrey, 595

Camp David, 282, 283, 519

Canada, 26, 89, 91, 270-71, 567

Canberra, Australia, 560-61

Canlubang Sugar Plantation, 559-60

Cape Canaveral, Fla., 377

Capitol Building, 569

Caracas, Venezuela, 161

Carlisle, Scotland, 260-62

Carlyle, Thomas, 535

Carlson, Frank, 25, 502, 522

Carmichael, Hoagy, 44

Carnation Farms, 241

Games, Norris, 69

Case, Francis, 350

Cassity, J. Glenn, 228

Castro, Fidel, 239, 419

Castro, Raul, 239

Catholic Rural Life Conference, 216-17

Cattle, 71-72, 78, 144, 154, 258, 359,
400 (See also Dairying and dairy
products); beef usage, 91-92, 129;
cattle caravan, 150-52; Conference
of Western Senators and, 89-91;
and demands for corn release,
104-5; drought and, 127 ff., 151;
exports, 372; foot-and-mouth dis-
ease, 93-95; Okla, delegation and,
208; Philippine, 560; research, 221-
22, 560; and St. Paul speech, 63-
66; Wyoming speech, 412

Celler, Emanuel, 206

Central Baptist Church (Moscow), 477,
486-88, 607-8

Central Livestock Association, 63

Chair, Agriculture Secretary's, 582

Chamoun, Camille, 377

INDEX

Chapman, Delmont L., 594

Cheese, 76, 255, 256, 525

Cherry, Francis, 128

Chevy Chase, Md., 4, 569

Cheyenne, Wyoming, 551

Chiang Kai-shek, 558-59

Chiang Kai-shek, Mme., 559

Chicago, 111., 6-7, 23, 504, 530 ff., 545,
562

Chicago Daily News, 539

Chicago Sun-Times, 171, 220, 538-39

Chicago Tribune, 545

Chickens. See Poultry

Chile, 548

China, 377, 55B-59

Christian Science Monitor, 149, 153, 172

Christmas Carol (Dickens), 29

Church World Service, 373

Churchill, Sir Winston, 202, 223, 245

Cincinnati Enquirer, 327

Citrus fruits, 262, 435

Clark, J. Reuben, 585

Clark's Men's Store (Provo, Utah), 8

Clarkson, M. R., 93, 94

Cleveland, Grover, 573

Cleveland, Miss., 1 14-15

Cleveland, Ohio, 416

Clyde, George D., 545-46

Cobb, Ty, 102

Cochrane, Willard W., 530

Coffee, 240, 241, 547

Coke, J. Earl, 22, 32, 111, 154, 155*
584; appointment, 31; at 1st meet-
m g 5 47-48; in Mexico, 94, 95;
Whitten mentions, 101

Coker, Robert R., 593

Colbjornsen (quoted), 464

Cologne, Germany, 474

Colombia, 237, 239

Colorado, 219, 243, 347. See also Denver

Columbia Broadcasting System, 190,
304, 400

Columbine (airplane), 207, 274, 347

Columbus, Ohio, 155

Commercial Appeal (Memphis, Tenn,),
172

Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC),
21, 88, 181, 192, 255 ff., 290 ff ; ;
and cotton to Spain, 370; Davis
heads, 31; and drought, 129; and
"payment in kind," 523; and per-
sonnel changes, 109; Whitten on,
177-78

613

Commodore Hotel, 3, 8, 33

Commodore Perry Hotel (Toledo), 326

Communism, 41, 161, 337-38, 419, 548-
49? 556-57. $ ee a l so China; Rus-
sia

Concordia College, 274

Conference of Western Senators, 90

Congo, 497

Congress, 72, 102-3, 145, 149, 157-585.,
183 ff., 307-8, 312-16, 346-475.,
380-85 ff., 401 ff., 428 ff., 437~3 8 >
446 ff., 500-9 passim, 521-25 [See
also House of Representatives; Sen-
ate; specific Acts; members); at-
tempts to oust Benson, 70, 386-90;
Benson meets powerful figures, 25;
vs. Cabinet members, 98 ff.; Family
Farm Bill, 521-246.; freeze bills,
391 ff.; Kennedy, Johnson in, 540-
41; lobbying and, 308 ff.; 1954
elections, 219-21; 1956 elections,
334-35; J 958 elections, 413-14;
i960 elections, 551; and passing of
legislation, 175-76; and patronage,
noff.; and pay raise bill, 528;
and REA, 447 ft.; selling Benson's
program to, 74-75; and special mes-
sages, i63ff., 2891!.; spending of
86th, 574; statesmen in, 106; and
USDA reorganization, 103-4, I 54"~

55

Congressional Hotel, 289

Congressional Quarterly, 194

Conrad Hilton Hotel, 504

Conservation, 154, 381; Agricultural
Program, 52, 165; Great Plains
Program, 276, 291, 296, 314, 341,
381; Reserve, 291 ff., 35 8 > 3%3> 4°4>
432, 49*> 5°°; Soil Service, 97, 154,
187, 350

Conservation Reserve, 291 ff., 358, 383,
432, 491, 500; strengthened, 404

Conservatives, Benson on, 569-81

Conventions, political, 331-32, 5 2 9~33

Gooley, Harold D., 25, 106, 193, 351 ff.,
402, 428; ABC time to, 204; and
Benson's hearings, 181, 191, 229-33,
304-5, 437, 438, 5°7; at House
members' dinner, 297; on Ike's let-
ter, 210; and Poage Bill, 523; wheat
proposal, 540-41

Copenhagen, Denmark, 263, 463

Corbett, Don, 264

Corn, 255, 347> 35 h 372, 383, 400,

6*4

432, 5 2 5J Acreage Reserve and,
291 IT., 358; Benson on farm mes-
sage, 171; Benson's testimony on,
180-81; carryover in 1955, 257; cat-
tlemen and release of, 104-5; "Corn
Farmer's Lament," 173, 174; in
freeze bill, 391; loan stocks of,
93; National Review on, 385; Ne-
braska loans, 198; omnibus bill and,
201; and payment in kind, 503-4 fL;
in President's messages, 164, 429;
in President's veto message, 319 fL;
referendum, 415, 445; on score-
board for Ag. Act of 1958, 404; in
Senate bill, 312, 313; turning stocks
of, 92

Corn Belt. See Corn; Hogs; Iowa

Corn Belt Farm Family Field Days, 328

"Corn Farmer's Lament," 173, 174

Corn Picking Contest, 361

Cornell Club, 38

Cosmos Club, 105

Costa Rica, 237, 241

Cotton, 255, 311, 351, 383, 403, 526,
598; Acreage Reserve and, 29 1 fL,
358; Benson on farm message, 171;
Benson's testimony on, 180-
81, 232; Calif, loans, 198; East-
land on, 267-68; exports, 237, 238,
247-49, 262, 370, 557; in freeze bill,
391; Israel crop, 537; in omnibus
bill, 201; Poage Bill and, 523; in
President's messages, 164, 165, 429-
30; in President's veto message, 319,
320; on scoreboard of Ag. Act of
1958, 404; in Senate bill, 312, 313;
and wash-and-wear fabric, 599

Council on Foreign Economic Policy,
247

Council of the Twelve, 4, 143, 359, 374,

439, 542-43
Counterfeiters, 97
Cranberry incident, 492-93
Credit, 291. See also Commodity Credit

Corporation
Crockett, Davy, 153
Cuba, 237, 238-39, 419, 497
Curtis, Carl T., 504
Cutler, Robert, 135
Czechoslovakia, 41

D.A.R. Good Citizenship Medal, 251
Dague, Paul B., 106

INDEX

Dairying and dairy products, 76-77,
198-99, 210, 211, 255-57, 3^3, 316;
Benson's hearings and, 230 fL, 400;
Davis on supports, 207-8; exports,
Hh 372; and freeze bill, 391 ff,;
Latin America and, 240, 241, 372;
lobbies, 309-10; i960 results of pro-
gram, 525, 598, 599; in omnibus
bills, 204, 401; in President's veto
message, 320; on scoreboard of Ag.
Act of 1958, 405; supports lowered,
186-87, 190; Vermont, 74; Wis-
consin, 411-12; and wool bill, 192

Dairy Science Association, 198

Dallas, Tex., 27

Darrow, Wayne, 437-38

Darwin, Australia, 560

Davenport, Iowa, 216

Davies, Aled, 69, 309

Davies, Joseph E., 457

Davis, Chester, 9, 22

Davis, Clifford, 196

Davis, Jack C, 66

Davis, John C, 207-8

Davis, John E., 517

Davis, John H., 22-23, 3°, m> 228,
593; appointed to CCC, 31, 32; at
Benson's first meeting, 47-48; and
Benson's speeches, 66, 114

Davison, Homer, 69, 593

Deadwood, S.D., 115

Defense, Secretary of (See also Gates,
Thomas S., Jr.; Wilson, Charles
E.) : and Campaigns, 332

De Gaulle, Charles, 377

DeGrafT, Harold, 69

Delta Cotton Council, 114

Democratic Party, 52, 108, 148, 165,
449 (See also Congress; Truman,
Harry S.); conventions, 331, 529-
30; and elections (See Elections)

Denmark, 262-63, 372, 462-65

Denver, Colo., 92, 113-14, 146, 197, 269,
272 ff.

Department of Agriculture. See Agri-
culture, Department of

Depew, Chauncey, 116

Deseret Manufacturing Company, 434

Des Moines, Iowa, 78-80, 185, 303

Des Moines Register and Tribune, 79-
80, 405-6, 512

"Development of Agriculture's Human
Resources," 295-96

INDEX

Dewey, Thomas E., 5-8, 24, 108

Dickens, Charles, 28

Dillon, Douglas, 467

Director of Agricultural Credit Services,

450
Dirksen, Everett, 106, 164, 208, 322,

388, 500; and freeze bill, 393, 395
Disarmament. See Geneva Conference
Disraeli, Benjamin, 501
Dixon, Henry Aldous, 106, 218, 220
Doane Agricultural Service, Inc., 27
Docking, George, 551
Dodge, Joseph M., 27, 164
Doud, Elivera M., 146, 221, 269, 334
Driscoll, Denny, 152
Drummond, Roscoe, 304-5, 331, 405,

Drought areas, 151, 341, 432, 537; Ben-
son visits, 126-29, 156, 243-44, 333,

334-35, 347-48

Dulles, John Foster, 33 ff., 46, 98, 271,
272; and campaigns, 332; illness,
death, 438-39, 442-43; and patron-
age, no; and surplus, 247, 248,
270

Duluth, Minn., 551

Durkin, Martin P., 31, 34, 36, 135-36,
345

Easter Sunrise Service, 439-42

Eastland, James O., 67, 307, 311, 315;
and Benson, 114, 115, 243, 267-68

Eau Claire, Wis., 117

Eden, Sir Anthony, 202, 245, 343

Edson, Peter, 149

Education, aid to, 283, 354~55> 4 22 ~
23 if., 516, 529

Eggs, 218, 444

Egypt, 287, 537

Eisenhower, Dwight David, 72-73 ff., 91,
143 ff., 153, 158-59, 184 ff., 197,
201-12 passim, 216 ff., 225, 308,
312 ff., 347-48, 359 ff., 380 ff., 409,
459 fr> 49i **•> 500-1, 511 ff., 526-
29, 532, 579; and attacks on Benson,
69-70, 145-46, 149-5°? l8 9> 328,
373, 387^ 539-40; and Benson's
appointment, 10-12, 24 ff., 31, 345-
46; and Bensons' TV show, 215;
and budget, 354, 424-25, 44&ff.,
527-29, 541, 549; and Cabinet, 32-
33fr> 133-35, 189, 246 ff., 566-68
{See also Cabinet); as chef, 92,

615

124-25; on Dulles, 443; "educa-
tion," 123-26 ff.; and elections, 334,
549; and farm messages, 163 ff.,
289-^off., 383, 429 ff., 459, 501 ff.;
final year in office, 421 ff.; and
freeze bill, 393 ff.; at Front Royal,
221-22; and Geneva, 245-46, 259;
and Hungary, 338 ff.; illness, con-
valescence, 269-71 ff., 281-82 ff.,
343; and Inaugurations, 32, 35,
43 ff., 348-49; Kasson pledge, 38-
39, 123; and Khrushchev, 468; and
meat grading, 65-66; and Minerals
Plan, 397 ff.; and Mormon Choir,
412-13; natural gas bill, 303; and
patronage, 36, noff.; and prayers,
33, 44-45, 49, 59-60, 312; on Reed
Benson, 326; and 2nd term, 305-7;
and security, 208, 229, 427,* and
Strauss, 458; and tactics, 203; and
Taft, 130 ff.; testimonial dinner,
563-65; and trade trips, 237, 242,
260, 471; and vetoes, 317-181!.,
396, 451, 462, 528

Eisenhower, Mrs. Dwight David (Ma-
atie), 35, 131, 221, 334, 538; and
Cabinet wives 9 luncheon, 199-200;
concert for, 412-13; in hospital,
2 75-76, 277, 359; and Ike's illness,
269; at testimonial dinner, 563-64

Eisenhower, Milton, 8ff., 24, 38, 77,
158, 274; good-will tour, 237; at
Penn. State, 198; and USDA re-
organization, 126; wife's death, 207

Eisenhower, Mrs. Milton, 207

Eldora, Iowa, 328-29

Elections, 5-8, 148-49, 213 ff., 328 ff.,
408 ff., 538 ff.

Electricity, 57, 447-52, 482. See also
Rural Electrification Administra-
tion

Elizabeth II, 41, 363

Ellender, Allen J., 90, 192, 289, 314,
438, 521; and Benson's hearings,
101, 102, 384, 385; letter to, 352,
353, 355,* steambath interview, 349;
and vetoes, 191, 322; wheat pro-
posal, 502

Ellis, Clyde, 108, 451

Emanuel, Victor, 25

Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 103

Empire State Building, 20

Emporia Gazette 3 550-51

6i6

England, 89, 245, 262, 287, 343, 370

Enzler, "Doc," 358

Europe, 259-67, 370 ff., 462-65, 472-88,

European Common Market, 534 ff.

European Economic Community, 535

Evans, Arthur B., 594

Evans, Mark, 407-8

Everett, Edward, 346

Executive Order 10450, 227, 228

Exhibition of Economic Achievements
of the U.S.S.R., 479

Exports, 237 ff., 259 ff., 358, 364-65 ff.,
472 ff., 534 ff., 560, 583, 599 (See
also Public Law 480; specific com-
modities, countries); Food for
Peace, 432~33> 49*> 599. &>i; For-
eign Ag. Service, 97, 120, 380; re-
search and, 600; on 6-point pro-
gram, 276; Whitten on, 177-78

Extension Service, 31, 32

FHA (Farmers Home Administration),
187, 301, 432

Fair Deal, 6, 11,55*259

Fallon, George H., 196

Family Farm Bill, 521-25 passim

Far East, 365 ff., 372, 556 ff, See also
specific countries

Fargo, N.D., 273-74

Farm Bureau (AFBF), 156, 184, 310,
502, 525, 562 (See also specific
states); and Belcher Bill, 460; FDR
and, 9; and freeze bill, 395; Kline
of, 51; tape recordings for, 164; and
veto message, 322

Farm Credit Administration, 216, 449

Farm Forum, 185

Farm and Home Week, 234

Farm Journal, 19, 445

Farm Management, 297

Farm and Ranch, 407, 60&-8

Farm Surplus Reduction Act of i960.
See Family Farm Bill

Farmers Home Administration (FHA),
^7, $ot 9 432

Farmers Union, 51, 144, 156, 189, 273,
502; Benson's Denver speech, 197-
98; and Burdick, 517; cattle cara-
van, 150-52; Cooley and, 304; and
drought, 243; FDR and, 9; Ken-
nedy program and, 552; Nat'l Dairy
Conference, 186

INDEX

Farrington, Carl, 593

Fats, 180-81, 599-600 (See also Oils)-

lard, 237
Faubus, Orval, 343
Faure, Edgar, 245, 246
Ferguson, Clarence M., 31, 32, 47
Ferguson, Homer, 159, 208
Feria Ganadera, 238-39
Fillmore, Millard, 346
Fischer, John, 301-2
Fisher, Russell F., 473
Fitzsimmons Army Hospital, 274 ff., 282
Flanders, Ralph E., 209
Fleming, Roger, 310
Renaming, Arthur S., 422, 423, 549,

566, 567
Flood, Francis, 260
Florence (S.G.) News, 149
Flores Munez (Mexican Ag. Minister),

241
Floriade, the, 535, 536
Florida, 235, 289, 357
Folliard, Edward T., 539
Folsom, Marion B., 345, 354
Food and Drug Administration, 491,

492
Food Fairs, 463

Food for Peace, 432-33* 49*, 599, 601
Foot-and-mouth disease, 93-95
Foreign Agricultural Service, 97, 120,

380
Foreign markets. See Exports
Foreign Operations Administration, 229
Foreman's Committee on Highways,

282
Formosa, 557-58, 559
Fort Fairfield, Maine, 234
Fort Leavenworth, Kans., 434
Fortich, Caesar, 559
Fortune magazine, 317
Foss, Joseph J., 317, 335, 361, 362,

414
Fountain, L. H., 103, 104
4-H Clubs, 18, 239
France, 245, 287, 377, 424, 534; Benson

*n, 263, 370, 534 ff.
Francis, Clarence, 1 15-16
Franklin County, Idaho, 18
Freeman, Orville L., 530, 551, 584-85
Freeze bill, 391 ff.
Fresno, Calif., 6
Friggens, Paul, 19
Frondizi, Arturo, 548

INDEX

Front Royal, Va., Marriott ranch at.

See Marriott, J. Willard, and

family-
Fruits, 262, 370, 372, 435
Fulbright, J. William, 310-11
Future Farmers of America, 149, 426-27

Gallup Poll, 147-48
Gandhi, Mohandas, 367
Gannett News Service, 514
Garden City, Kans., 347-48
Gasoline tax, 291, 314
Gates, Thomas S., Jr., 566
General Motors Corp., 34, 45-46
Geneva Conference, 223, 245-46, 259
George, Walter F., 25, 247
Georgetown University, 35, 45
Germany, 41, 463, 534; Benson in, 264-

66, 371-72, 474-75. 535

Gettysburg, 221, 281, 505

Gillette, Guy, 219

Goldwater, Barry, 106, 412, 510, 519-
20, 532, 55°J on Benson, 375; on
Reed, 325

Gordon Junior High School, 362-63

"Gorki II" (farm), 480

Grains, 313, 319, 600 (See also Corn;
Wheat); exports, 537; in Omnibus
Bill, 401; in Poage Bill, 523; stor-
ing, 92-93, 216

Grange, National, 9, 51, 156, 210, 336,
502; Humphrey addresses, 278

Grant, Heber J., 142-43

Great Britain, See England

Great Depression, 56

Great Plains Program, 276, 29 1, 296,
314, 341, 381

Greece, 370

Gretna Green, 260

Gridiron Club, 124, 510

Gromyko, Andrei, 442

Gromyko, Mrs. Andrei, 470, 471

Gronchi, Giovanni, 305

Gross, H. R., 104, 298

Guatemala, 161, 237

GUM Department Store, 480

Guymon, Okla., 243

Hagen, Harlan, 106, 385

Hagerty, James, 36~37> 289, 317, 338;

during Ike's illness, 270, 274, 275,

276
Hague, The, 535

617

Hahn, Otto, 217

Hall, Fred, 317, 335

Hall, Leness, 241

Hall, Leonard, 119, 153, 244, 245, 281,

334; and McKay's candidacy, 330;

on Nixon, 516; and patronage, no-

11, 112; replaced, 350
Halleck, Charles A., 159, 202-3 ff., 380,

402, 451, 462
Hand, James, Jr., 594
Hanna, M, A., Co., 33
Hara, Kichihei, 557
Harlow, Bryce N., 163, 503, 504, 505,

511-12
Harper's magazine, 301-2
Harriman, Averell, 331, 421
Hatfield, Mark O,, 510
Hauge, Gabriel, 152, 187, 218, 280, 289,

409; and cotton surplus, 248; and

veto, 317, 318
Havana, Cuba, 238-39
Hawaii, 419, 561
Heaton, Leonard, 493
He-Coons, 69, 373, 466, 500
Herlong, A. S., Jr., 106
Herman, Ab, 542

Herring Hotel (Amarillo, Tex.), 128
Herseth, Ralph, 551
Hershey, Lewis B., 4
Hershey Sugar Mill, 239
Herter, Christian A., 331-32, 442, 541,

563, 567, 568
Hickenlooper, Bourke M., 280-81
Hickerson, John D., 559
Highways, 282-83, 575
Hill, George R., 86, 309
Hill, William S., 382, 393-94* 447
Hill Top, 138
Hillary, Sir Edmund, 41
Hitch, Tom J., 594
Hobby, Oveta Culp, 149, 199, 345
Hoegh, Leo, 317, 335
Hoeven, Charles B., 353, 447, 466, 503,

504-5

Hoffman, Clare E., 104

Hogs, 258, 297-99, 334, 359, 372, 400,
444, 515; Danish, 262-63; govern-
ment pork purchase, 278, 298;
Hickenlooper proposal, 280-81;
National Review on, 385. .

Holland, Spessard L., 106, 307, 314,

315, 3^5, 529
Hollywood Bowl, 439

6i8

Holy Land, 538
Hong Kong, 366
Hoopes, Lorenzo N., 226
Hoosier Cooperative Energy, 450
Hoover, Herbert, 24, 25, 116, 457, 532
Hoover, Herbert, Jr., 248
Hoover, J, Edgar, 13
Hope, Clifford R., 25, 74-75, 159, 164,
194, 195, 210; ABC time to, 204;
Benson lunches with, 105; at Ben-
son's hearing, 181; on compromise,
191; rumored to become Secretary,
I 49~5 ; telephone call to Benson,
147; and USDA reorganization, 154
Horace, 181
Horan, Walter F., 164
Horst, Miles, 500
Hot Shoppes, 91
Hotel Commodore, 3, 8, 33
Hotel Fort Des Moines, 78
Hotel Muehlebach, 149
Hotel Utah, 271, 546
Houck, L. Roy, 350
House of Representatives, 64, 193, 210-
11, 244, 297, 3*4, 459 ft (See also
Congress; specific members); Ben-
son's hearings, 99-101 ff., 147-48,
176-82, 229-34, 3<>4-5> 347, 35°-
5*> 353, 399-400, 435~37> 444-45,
507-8; and live hog support, 298-
99; and omnibus bills, 201-6,
401 ff.; and Puerto Rican attack,
196
Housing, 573, 575
Howard Johnson chain, 91
Hughes, Roland, 158
Hull, Merlin, 148
Human Rights Day, 338-39
Humphrey, George M., 46, 136-37, 158,
278-79, 332, 35 2 ; and cotton dis-
posal, 248; described, 33-34 ff.;
during Ike's illness, 270-71, 272
Humphrey, Mrs. George M. (Pamela),

200-1
Humphrey, Hubert, 105, 208, 384, 406,

502, 521; and REA, 450
Humphreys, Robert, in
Hungary, 287, 336-40
Hussein, King, 367
Hyatt, Sam, 90-91, 412
Hyde, Orson, 368-69

ICA, 229

Ickes, Harold L., 332

INDEX

Idaho, 15 ff., 15 x, 399
Illinois, 545, 552. See also specific cities
Inaugurations, 32 ff., 43-45, 348-49
Income tax, 216
India, 366-67
Indianapolis, Ind., 216
Indochina, 161

Inflation, 340-41, 424, 501, 511
Institute of Home Economics, 120
Interim Agricultural Advisory Commis-
sion, 27, 30, 52, 593-94
Interior, Department of, and Minerals

Plan, 397-99
Interior, Secretary of (See also McKay,

Douglas; Seaton, Frederick A.):

and campaigns, 332
Interlaken, Switzerland, 264
International Federation of Agricultural

Producers, 263
International General Provisions and

Fine Foods Exhibition, 474
International Wheat Agreement, 26, 88-

89
Iowa, 219, 297 ff., 553 (See also specific

towns); Farmers Union, 78; State

College, 84, 329
Israel, 287, 369-70, 537-38
Italy, 263, 370, 534
Ivan the Terrible, 480
Izvestia, 470

Japan, 366, 372, 556-57, 558, 600

Japan Cotton Spinners Association, 557

Jefferson, Thomas, 3-4, 71, 426-27, 573

Jensen, Ben F., 196, 298-99, 503, 512

Jerusalem, 537

Jesness, O. B., 595

Jet airliners, 377

Jews, 228, 476. See also Israel

John XXIII, Pope, 377

Johnson, Edwin C, 243

Johnson, Lester R., 149

Johnson, Lyndon, 106, 397, 428, 447,
461, 512; after nomination, 540,
541; Benson suggests letter to, 465;
and Poage Bill, 522 ff.; on "protec-
tion," 183; specifications for new
bill, 437; tours drought area, 128

Johnson, Samuel, 345

Johnson, Kans., 243

Johnston, Olin D., 103, 314

Johnstown, Penna., 300

Joint Committee on the Economic Re-
port, 310

INDEX

Joint United States-Canada Committee
on Trade and Economic Affairs,
270
Jordan, 367-68, 369, 537
Judd, Walter H., 386-87, 388

Kansas, 198, 243, 347, 414, 445, 553

Kansas City, Mo., 27, 149, 150, 551

Karachi, Pakistan, 366

Kasson, Minn., 38, 123

Kefauver, Estes, 331

Kennedy, John F., 331, 497, 530, 540 ff.,

573
Kerr, Robert S., 90, 105, 184, 186, 208
Key West, Fla., 289
Khrushchev, Nikita, 41, 287, 377, 419,

497, 532; in Geneva, 245; leaves

for China, 477, 478; U.S. tour,

467-71
Khrushchev, Mrs. Nikita, 470, 471
Kiev, 479

King David Hotel, 537
Kiplinger Letter, 211
Kirkpatrick, Richard, 327
Kline, Allan, 51, 78, 126, 154, 158, 184
Knowland, William, 106, 130, 159, 164
Knutson, Coya, 414
Kober Home Economics Award, 251
Koge, Denmark, 262, 463
Komar, Slavko, 473
Korean War, 41, 57, 65, 258, 279
Koterba, Edward V., 540
Kristianborg Castle, 263
Kuhn, Loeb, and Co., 457
Kyi, John, 503

Labor, 188-89, 340-41, 411. See also

Strikes
Labor, Secretary of {See also Durkin,

Martin P.; Mitchell, James P.):

and campaigns, 332
Lackland Air Force Base, 43
Ladejinsky, Wolf, 226-29
Laird, Melvin R., 186, 257
Lamar, Colorado, 243
Land Grant Colleges and Universities,

convention of, 155
Langen, Odin, 414
Langer, William, 104
Lard, 237
Latin America, 237-42, 372, 541, 544>

547-49, 567
Lausanne, Switzerland, 463
Lausche, Frank, 106, 155

619

Lawrence, Arthur C, 594

Lebanon, 377

Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich, 480, 485

Leo XIII, Pope, 216

Liberal, Kans., 243

Liberals, Benson on, 576 ff.

Life (magazine), 19, 199, 445

Life of Benjamin Franklin, 16

Liguitti, Msgr. Luigi, 217

Lincoln, Abraham, 71, 107, 348-49, 527,

580; Agriculture Dept. and, 20, 21,

179; Memorial, 570-71
Lincoln, Neb., 515
Lincoln Apartments, 85, 329
Lincoln Memorial, 570-71
Liquor, 96-97
Little Rock, Ark., 6, 343
Little Visits with Great Americans, 16
Livestock, 147, 238-39 ff., 435. See also

Cattle; Hogs
Lobbying, 308-11
Lodge, Henry Cabot, 469, 532, 549,

550, 563
Logan, Utah, 20, 83, 464
London, England, 262
Long Island, N.Y., 304
Look (magazine), 145-46, 215
Los Angeles, Calif., 22, 529
Louisville, Ky., 6
Love, James J., 595
Loveless, Herschel C, 523, 530, 551
Lovelock, Nev., 414
Lovre, Harold O., 104-5, 298
Lowry Air Force Base, 269
Loyalty Review Board, 227
Lubbock, Tex., 127, 156
Luce, Clare Booth, 263
Lucey, Charles, 211
Luniks, 419
Luxembourg, 372, 534

MacArthur, Douglas, 24-25, 116
MacArthur, Douglas, II, 556
McCarran, Pat, 90, 412
"McCarthy, Charlie," 44, 235
McCarthy, Eugene J., 67, 414
McCarthy, Joseph R., 161, 209, 343
McClellan, John L., 310
McClendon, Sarah, 323
McConnell, James A., 13, 14, 69, 516
McFarland, Ernest W., 412
McGaffin, William, 539
McGarraghy, Joseph, 35
Mclntire, Clifford G., 106

620

McKay, David 0., 28, 275, 407, 408,
5*9> 5455 anc * Benson*s appoint-
ment, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12; at Inaugura-
tion, 44; and Nixon's Salt Lake
speech, 543; in Switzerland, 263;
visits Ike, 359-61
McKay, Douglas, 34, 237, 272, 330, 345
McKnight, Henry T., 594
McLain, Marvin, in, 316, 500, 504-5,
54*> 594J Whitten and, 435, 436
McLeod, Scott, 228
Macmillan, Harold, 343
McMillen, Robert D., 411, 596
McRoberts, Flint, 595
McSween, Harold B., 524
Madison, James, 571, 572-73
Madsen, Mrs. Lowell. See Benson,

Bonnie
Magnuson, Warren G., 522
Mahoney, Claude, 400, 514
Malaya, 372
Manila, P.I., 559
Mansholt, Sicco CL, 535
Marden, Orison, 16

Marriott, J. Willard, and family, 7, 43,
81-82, 137, 209, 250; Ike visits,
221-22
Marriott, Mrs. J, Willard (Allie), 81-82
Marriott Motor Hotel, 417
Marshall, Fred, 433
Marshall, George CL, 419
Marshall County, Term., 256
Martin, Jack, 187, 280, 307, 314, 373,

389
Martin, Joseph W., Jr. (Joe), 159,
201-2, 204, 205, 386, 402; Emanuel
on, 25; and freeze bill, 393-94
Martin, Ovid, 489-90
Martin, Thomas E., 219
Maryland, 134, 518-19 {See also specific

towns); University of, 31
Massachusetts, 91, 434
Matskevich, Larisa, 480
Matskevich, Vladimir V., 249-50, 477-

78, 480, 481-82
Matsu, 377

Mattingly, Thomas M., 270
Maybank, Burnet R., 67
Mayflower Hotel (Washington), 282
Meany, George, 189, 234
Meat, 65-66, 372, 561. See also Beef;

Livestock; Pork
Mechanization, 57, 483

INDEX

Mechem, Edwin L., 128

Medicine, Russian, 484

Menshikov, Mikhail, 392

Menzics, Robert G., 242, 560

Merchandise Mart, 20

Mesa, Ariz., 412

Mexico, 93-95, 237, 241

Meyers, Lieutenant Colonel, 43, 44

Michigan, 553

Middle East, 366!!., 377, 537-38. See
also specific countries

Milius, Chris, 593

Milk, 187, 198-99, 309-10, 400, 401
(See also Dairying and dairy prod-
ucts); Special School Program, 256,
599

Miller, Arthur L., 149, 386-87, 388,
389-90, 414

Miller, Clarence, in, 584

Miller, Jack R., 551

Miller, John D., 10

Millikin, Eugene D., 159

Minerals, 397-99

Minneapolis, Minn., 256, 551

Minneapolis Tribune, 514

Minnesota, 75, 414, 551, 552, 553. See
also specific cities

Missouri, 156, 350,551, 552

Mitchell, Albert K., 69, 517, 593

Mitchell, James P., 345, 511, 549, 566,

567
Mohammed V (Sultan of Morocco),

374

Mollenhoff, Clark R., 512-13

Monkeys, 419

Montana, 445

Montesquieu, Charles, baron de, 421

Monticello, 426-27

Moon, 419

Moore, Colonel and Mrs., 222

Moorhead, Minn., 273-74

More, Jake, 220

Morgan, Gerald D., 187, 2x8

Mormon Church, 4-5, 271, 345-46, 374,
519, 586-87; Benson joins Council
of 12, 142-43; Benson's parents
and, 15 ff.; choir, 412-13; and free-
dom, 18; and Israel, 368-69; and
Latin America, 238; McKay visits
Ike, 359-61; Mark and, 357; NYC
building for, 7; and political
speeches, 542-44; and prayers, 275,
359, 439; Reed and, 325, 470-71;

INDEX

621

and Scotland, 261-62; and sugar
beets, 434; Swiss temple, 263-64;
welfare program, 265-66, 579-80

Morse, True D., 66, 101, 152, 281, 289,
315 ff.; at Aiken meeting, 307; be-
comes Under Secretary, 27, 30; at
1st meeting, 47; letter to Seaton,
398

Morse, Wayne, 46, 104, 330

Morton, Thruston B., 494, 495, 511, 541,
542, 544

Moscow, 477-80, 485-88

Mount Everest, 41

Mueller, Frederick H., 511, 527, 549,
566

Mundt, Karl E., 102, 149, 307, 361, 500,

503, 504
Murphy, Charles J. V., 317
Murray, James E., 67
Murray, Johnston, 128
Murrow, Edward R., 214, 215, 300,

3°3
Mutual Broadcasting System, 514
Mutual Security program, 91
Myers, W. I., 22, 38, 158, 593

NBC, 78, 141, 220
Nardone, Benito, 547
National Agricultural Advisory Com-
mission, 61, 88, 157, 259, 284, 562;
members listed, 594-95
National Arboretum, 96
National Armory (Washington), 35, 45
National Assn. of Soil Conservation

Districts, 154, 350
National Broadcasting Co., 78, 141, 220
National Catholic Rural Life Conf.,

216-17
National Conf. of Christians and Jews,

1 15-16
National Cotton Council, 234
National Council of Farmer Coopera-
tives, 3, 9-10, 14, 32, 234
National Dairy Council, 234
National Editorial Association, 235
National Farm Institute, 78-80
National Farm and Ranch Congress, 1 13
National Farmers Union. See Farmers

Union
National Federation of Rural Electric

Cooperatives, 451
National Grange, 9, 51, 156, 210, 336,
502; Humphrey addresses, 278

National Plowing Contest, 117, 214
National Presbyterian Church, 44
National Press Club, 113, 314, 315
National Review, 385
National Rural Electric Cooperative

Assn., 108
National Wheat Growers Association,

502
National Wool Growers Conference, 188
National Young Republicans, 518
Natural gas bill, 303
Nautilus, U.S.S., 161
Naval Medical Center, 207
Navy Department, 457-58
Nebraska, 198, 353, 411, 515, 553
Nehru, Jawaharlal, 366-67
Nelson, Ancher, 109, 414
Nelson, Gaylord A., 551
Nelson, Rollis, 245, 281, 350, 533
Netherlands, 262, 372, 534, 535-36
Nevada, 156, 343, 414
New Deal, 6, 11, 55, 259, 577
New Mexico, 156, 243-44, 256, 347
New Orleans, La., 267, 357, 434
New York City, 7, 23 fL, 33 ff., 1 15-16,

196, 562-63; and beef use, 91
New York Herald Tribune, 583
New York Stock Exchange, 270
New York Times, the, 190, 515, 517
New York Times Magazine, The, 184-

85

New York Yankees, 41

New Zealand, 561

Newfoundland, 472

Newport, R.I., 360-61

Newsom, Herschel D., 51, 78, 105, 126,
210

Newton, Isaac, 20, 21

Nicaragua, 237, 241

Nixon, Richard M., 33, 332, 457, 492,
502 ff., 510 ff.; ABC broadcast, 204;
and aid to education, 423; at Burn-
ing Tree Country Club, 124; Celler
on, 206; during Ike's illness, 270 ff.,
278 ff.; luncheon for sultan, 374; on
1958 elections, 414-15; and i960
elections, 314 ff., 421, 531 ff., 53 s "
39; presides over Cabinet, 135, 246,
271-72, 278, 511-12; Russian trip,

477
Nixon, Mrs. Richard, 199, 457, 518,

564

622

North Dakota, 75, i94> 445> 5*7> 553-

See also specific towns
Northampton, Mass., 434
Notre Dame University, 346
Nowa Wiles, Poland, 475

Oatis, William N., 41
Oats, 93

Ocean City, Md., 206-7
Ochab, Edward, 475, 47$
O'Connell, Daniel, 220
Office of Price Stabilization, 65
Office of Strategic Services, 217
Ohio, 155, 219, 326, 416
Oils, 165, 180-81, 255, 352, 372
Oklahoma, 208, 243, 347, 445
Oklahoma Gity Times, 221
Olney, III, 214
Omaha, Neb., 353
Omnibus bills, 201 ff., 401
Open Skies proposal, 246
Oregon, 5, 330
Ortiz, Morco, 241
Othman, Frederick, 322
Ottawa, Canada, 270-71

PTA, 362-63

Paarlberg, Don, 108, 152, 316, 429,
503 ff.; to Augusta, 317; at 1st
meeting, 47; and crash program,
259; joins USDA, 31; note quoted,
351; President drafts, 358, 409

Page, John E., 368

Pakistan, 366, 367

Palmer House, 23

Pan American Airlines, 463

Panama, 237, 240-41

Paris, France, 263

Parity concept, 39. See also Price sup-
ports

Parker, Mrs. James Mclntyre. See Ben-
son, Beverly

Patronage, 36, 107-12

Patton, James G., 51, 150, 186, 189

Pay raise legislation, 528

Peanut-butter incident, 493

Peanuts, 204, 351, 429, 432, 526; and
acreage allotments, 383; in farm
bill, 312, 313, 319, 320; flexibles 1st
proposed, 164; sugar beets com-
pared to, 435

Pearson, Drew, 26, 565-66

Pennsylvania State University, 198

INDEX

Pensions, 424, 575

Pentagon, 20

Per6n, Juan, 223, 548

"Person to Person," 214-15

Persons, Wilton ("Jerry"), 77, 152, ^7,

270, 3*4> 549

Peru, 548

Peterson, Ervin L., 187, 584

Peterson, Mark E., 8, 374

Phaedrus, 181

Philadelphia, Penna., 434

Philadelphia Inquirer, 172

Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 363

Philippine Islands, 559-60

Phillips, John, 25

Phoenix, Ariz., 412

Pidgeon, Walter, 44

Pierre, S.D., 350

Pilgrim's Progress, 16

Pius XI, Pope, 216

Pius XII, Pope, 377

Plastics, 599-600

Plutarch, 181

Poage, W. R., 184, 193, 304, 402, 521 ff.

Poland, 475-77, 490

Polaris missiles, 497

Politics (See also Conventions; Elec-
tions; specific parties): Jefferson
on, 3-4; and patronage, 107-12

Pork, 278, 298. See also Hogs

Portugal, 370

Potatoes, 234, 239, 304, 600

Potter, I. Lee, 408

Poultry, 218, 267, 435, 444, 474, 599

Powers, Francis Gary, 497

Prayers, 44-45, 48, 127, 275, 359, 439;
Cabinet and, 33, 37~3 8 > 49, 59~ 6o >
246

Prescott, Ariz., 156

Prestwick, Scotland, 472

Price Support Program . . . , 233

Price supports, 54 ff., i05ff. P 1 53~54>
174-75, 183-95 passim, 201-11
passim, 244, 307 ff,, 312-24 passim,
351 ff., 380 ff., 401 ff., 429 ff., 445-
46, 500 ff. (See also specific com-
modities); Brannan Plan, 20, 179,
188, 397 ff.; in Family Farm Bill,
521 ff.; in freeze bill, 391 ff.; in
General Statement on Ag. Policy,
61-62, 603; House hearings and,
99-101, 178-80 ff., 230-32, 508
(See also Cotton); minerals and,

INDEX

397-99; OPS and, 65; pamphlet on,
2 33-34; St. Paul speech and, 63-
70, 100; selling Benson's program,
71-80; Senate hearings and, 38-
39, ioi~2; and special messages,
1 64 if., 290; survey on, 156-58 fL,
166 ff.; Time interview, 254-55

Prince Igor, 479

Princeton University, 279

Production and Marketing Admin., 52,
103

Provo, Utah, 8, 84, 357

Public Law 480 (Agricultural Trade
Development and Assistance Act),
238, 247, 255, 266, 351, 380; be-
comes law, 211; extending, 347,

358> 432
Public Opinion Institute, 279
Public relations, 196-99 fL, 235-36, 283
Public works projects, 575
Puerto Rico, 196, 237, 239, 453
Purdue University, 258, 328, 358

Quemoy, 377

REA (Rural Electrification Administra-
tion), 108-9, l8 7> 4*4, 432, 448-
52

Rabb, Maxwell M., 133, 246

Racial segregation, 161, 343

Railroad labor dispute, 188-89

Randall Commission on Foreign Trade
Policy, 432

Randolph, Martha Jefferson, 3

Ranglack, Richard, 265-66

Rankin, Karl L,, 473, 474

Rayburn, Sam, 206, 244, 402, 403, 428,
512; and Poage Bill, 522, 523; and
veto, 465

Rebild Park, 462-63, 464

Red Ball (Havana), 239

Reed, Harry J., 593

Reid, Ogden R., and wife, 537

Religion, 345-46, 439-42, 485-88, 551,
606-8. See also Mormon Church;
Prayers

Remon, Jose* Antonio, 136

Reparto Country Club, 239

Republican National Committee, 284,
3i8, 334, 414, 494, 542; agricul-
ture specialist, 244-45, 350; Alcorn
heads, 350; and Mrs. Benson, 328;
and patronage, 107, no; Potter of,

623

408; Reed and, 326; Summerfield
of, 34

Republican Party, 3fl, 148, 325, 530 ff,
(See also Congress; Republican
National Committee); conventions,
331-32, 532-33; elections (See
Elections)

Research, 276, 291, 432, 491, 509, 599-
600; Agricultural Service, 93, 97,
120; at Beltsville, 124, 263, 467,
468-70

Reston, James, 517

Reuther, Walter, 232-33, 234, 410

Reynolds, Quentin, 595

Rhode Island, 91, 360-61

Rice, 164, 3i9fL, 351, 4035., 523;
acreage allotments, 384, 430; Acre-
age Reserve and, 291 ff.; exports
°f, 2 375 3^5; sugar beets compared
to, 435; 2-price plan, 313, 319

Richmond, Va., 552

"Right to work," 411

Rio de Janeiro, 547

Rizley, Ross, 194

Roberts, Kenneth A., 196

Roberts, Ralph, 584

Rochester, N.Y., 336

Rock Creek Park, 137, 138

Rock Island (111.) Argus, 149

Rockefeller, Nelson, 492, 514; and cam-
paign, 421, 518, 519-20, 531-32,

533, 554
Rockefeller Foundation, 240
Rockets, 419, 425
Rocky Mountains, 588
Rodriguez, Major, 477
Rodriguez, Jorge Alessandri, 548
Rogers, William P., 511, 566, 567
Rojas (Colombian President), 240
Rome, Italy, 263
Romney, Marion G., 374
Roosevelt, Franklin D., 9-10, 123, 259,

332, 379, 553
Roosevelt, Theodore, 137
Rosenberg, Julius and Ethel, 41
Ruiz Cortines, Adolf 0, 241
Rural Development Program, 290-91,

294-96, 3 J 4, 383, 452-53, 601; in

1961, 599; on 6-point program, 276
Rural Electrification Administration

(REA), 108-9, l8 7> 4*4, 432, 448-

52
Russell, Jim, 79

624

Russell, Richard B,, 25, 26-27, 67,
102 ff., 509

Russia, 41, 343, 377, 419, 425; agricul-
turists in U.S., 249-50; Benson in,
477-88, 606-8; and Geneva, 245-
46; and Hungary, 337; Khrushchev
in U.S., 467-71; Menshikov meets
Benson, 392

Russian Press Association, 481

SCS (Soil Conservation Service), 97,

*54> i$7> 350
Saddle and Sirloin Club, 562
Safeway Stores, 226
Safford, Ariz., 412
St. BasiPs Cathedral, 480
St. Croix, 237
St. Francis Hotel, 332
St Lawrence Seaway, 216, 419
St. Louis, Mo., 350, 551
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 302
St. Paul, Minn,, 63, 66-67, I00 > 3°3>

St Petersburg, Fla., 235

Salaries, 142. See also Pay raise legisla-
tion

Salk vaccine, 161

Salt Lake City, 19, 23, 27-30, 80, 139,
406, 585. See also Mormon Church

San Antonio, Tex., 43, 127-28

San Francisco, Calif., 303, 332, 433,
454

San Francisco Chronicle, 172

Sante Fc, N.M., 156

"Santa Monica" (ranch), 241

Sao Paulo, Brazil, 547

Satellites, 377; Sputniks, 343

Saylor, John K, 299

Sayre, Mrs. Raymond, 594

Schedule C, 109-10

Scheibel, Ken, 514

Schenck, Hassil Eli, 595

Schluter, Fred E., 544-45

Schoeppel, Andrew F., 209, 500

Schools, 91, 256, 298, 314, 493, 599;
Federal aid to, 283, 354~55> 4*2-
23 ft, 516, 529

Schwengel, Fred, 106, 503

Scotland, 260-62, 472-73

Scott, Kenneth L., 450

Scripps-Howard, 211

Seaton, Frederick A., 289, 314-15, 317,
5*3? 567; becomes Secretary, 345;

INDEX

and mineral plan, 397 ff.; and
Nixon campaign, 533, 543

Security, 13, 223, 226 ff.

"See It Now,'* 300

Segni, Antonio, 263

Senate, 207 ff., 297, 312-14 ff., 401 ff,,
459 ff. (See also Congress; specific
Senators); Benson's hearings, 38-39,
101-2, 180, 297, 322-23, 384-85,
438, 508-9; Conference of Western
Senators, 90-91; reaction to St.
Paul speech, 67-68; and Strauss
confirmation, 458; and Wilson's
confirmation, 45-46; and wool bill,

192-93

Shaw, Byron T., 468, 469

Sheraton-Park Hotel, 334, 518, 549

Sheraton-Towers Hotel, 533

Shihmen Dam, 558

Shipping, 573, 575

Shivers, Allan, 127, 128

Shoreham Hotel, 118

Short, Romeo E., 30, 101, 111, 593

Shuman, Charles B., 382

Shurtleff, Miller, 237, 585

Simms, B. T., 93

Simpson, Richard M., 386

Sioux Falls, S.D., 361

6-point program, 274 ff.

Skytte, Karl, 463

Slavuic, Gojvo, 473-74

Smith, George A., 369

Smith, Howard W., 106

Smith, Joseph, 368-69, 471

Smith, Margaret Chase, 104

Smith, Milan, 226

Smith, Walter Bedell, 158

Smith, Wilmer V., 595

"Snerd, Mortimer," 235-36

Snyder, Howard M., 269

Snyder, Murray, 270

Social security, 216, 599

Soil Bank, 290, 291-94, 313, 358, 380,
404 (See also Acreage Reserve);
corn program and, 347, 391; made
law, 323-24; satire on, 499; in
special mesage, 383; in veto mes-
sage, 320

Soil Conservation Service (SCS), 97,

154. 187, 350
Sorghum, 237, 432
Sorkin, Martin, 505

INDEX

South America, 237-42, 372, 541, 544,

547-49, 567
South Dakota, 115, 350, 361, 553
South Dakota Livestock Growers, 115
Sovietskaya Hotel, 478-79
Soybeans, 237, 255, 372, 432, 525-26,

600
Spain, 370

Sparkman, John J., 67
Special School Milk Program, 256, 599
Speeches, 117-22. See also specific

cities, organizations, speakers
Springfield, Colo., 243
Sputniks, 343

Stalin, Joseph, 41, 287, 480, 485
Stalin Allee, 475
Stamper, Forrest, 595
Stanford University, 86, 357
Stans, Maurice H., 527, 568
Stassen, Harold E., 5, 218, 229, 272,

331-32
State College, Penna., 207
State, Department of, 226 ff., 245, 247,

248, 467
State, Secretary of (See also Dulles,

John Foster; Herter, Christian A.) :

and campaigns, 332
State of the Union addresses, 49, 66,

500-1
Statler Hotel, 25, 124, 325, 538
Steel strikes, 340, 419, 511
Stennis, John C, 311
Stevens, Don A., 594
Stevenson, Adlai, 331
Stokes, Tom, 212
Stone, Paul, 138
"Straight Talk," 606-8
Stratford, Tex., 243
Strauss, Lewis L., 457-58
Strikes, 340, 419, 511
Stringfellow, Douglas R., 217-18, 220
Studzinski, John, 475
Submarines, 419, 497
Subsidies, See Price supports
Suez Canal, 287
Sugar, 239, 432, 434-35
Sugar Act, 432
Summer-field, Arthur E., 34, 36, 330,

518, 527; to Denver, 274; on egg

throwing, 362; at Ike's testimonial,

563, 564
Summit. See Geneva Conference
Sun Yat-sen, 558

625

Sunday, Billy, 347

Sunkist Growers, Inc., 22

Sunrise Service, 439-42

Supreme Court, 425

Surpluses, 158, i65ff., 2556°,, 319-20 ff.,
351-52, 358, 381-86 passim, 405,
523 ff., 598 (See also Price sup-
ports; Public Law 480; specific
commodities); exports of (See Ex-
ports); and Food for Peace, 432-
33, 49 U 599> 601; on 6-point pro-
gram, 276; and Soil Bank, 289-94
(See also Soil Bank)

Swanton, Milo, 593

Sweden, 372

Swigart, Ben, 595

Swigart, Sterling, 594

Swissair, 463

Switzerland, 263-64, 265, 267, 463;
Geneva, 223, 245-46, 259

Sydney, Australia, 560

Symington, Stuart, 521

Syria, 537

Taft, Robert A., 81, 106, 124, 307, 349,

576-77; and Benson's appointment,

5, 9, 11, 14, 23-24; death, 130-32;

on Durkin, 34; Emanuel on, 25
Taft, Mrs. Robert A. (Martha), 81, 130
Tallow, 372
Tapp, Jesse W., 593
Taxes, 216, 291, 314, 574
Taylor, Henry J., 267
Telephones, 449, 482
Texas, 347. See also specific cities
Texas Southwestern Cattle Raisers

Assn., 71
Thornton, Dan, 65, 128, 146-47
Thorvaldsen, Bertel, 463
Thurmond, Strom, 106
Thye, Edward J., 164, 186, 187, 192,

208, 307; at Benson hearing, 39;

and freeze bill, 392-93; loses seat,

414; in St. Paul, 66
Time magazine, 19, 254, 495
"Tip Top" (bull), 241
Tito, Josip Broz, 474
Tobacco, 165, 351, 429, 432, 460 ff., 526;

average allotment, 383; compared

to beets, 435; exports, 237, 238;

416; Halleck and, 205; Maryland,

134; in Poage Bill, 523
Tobin, Maurice J., 332

6a6

Tocqueville, Alexis de, 577

Tokyo, 366, 556-57

Toledo, Ohio, 326

Tolstoy, Leo, 16, 470-71

Topeka, Kans., 414

Trade, foreign. See Exports

Treasury, Secretary of (See also Ander-
son, Robert B.; Humphrey, George
M.) : and campaigns, 332

Trinidad, 237, 239

Truman, Harry S., 39, 56, 103, 333,
379, 555; Dewey campaign, 5, 7,
108, 298, 332; farm prices drop un-
der, 63, 144; Loyalty Review Board,
227; and OPS, 65; on prices, 165;
and Stevenson, 331; and Strauss,

458
Tucumcari, N.M., 243-44
Turen, Venezuela, 240
Turkey, 370
Turkeys, 444
Turner, Roy, 72

U-2 incident, 497

USDA. See Agriculture, Department of

U.S. News & World Report, 19, 183-

84, 244
Ukraine, 479, 480-82
Ulysses, Kans., 243
Unions, 188-89, 340-41, 411 {See also

Farmers Union); strikes, 340, 419,

5"
United Arab Republic, 537
United Features, 540
United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Assn.,

5°4

United Nations, 497

United Press, 215

U Nu, 245

Uruguay, 547

Utah, 12, 151, 399, 434 (See also spe-
cific towns); elections, 217-18, 220,
544-46; State Ag. College, 83;
State Farm Bureau, 4

VICORP, 96-97, 237, 239
Valdes de la Paz, Osvaldo, 239
Vegetable Growers Association, 416
Velva, N.D., 333
Venezuela, 161, 237, 239-40, 241
Vermont, 74
Vietnam, 229
Vinson, Fred M., 46

INDEX

Virgin Islands, 96-97, 237, 239
Virginia Agricultural College, 138
Virginia Farm Bureau, 354
Von Fremd, Charles S., 190
Vursell, Charles W., 204

WAR (TV station), 300

WGN (radio station), 504

Wages, ^ 340-41. See also Pay raise
legislation

Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, 24, 115, 116

Waldorf Cafeterias, 91

Walker, Robert H., 269, 271, 285, 336,
457

Walker, Mrs, Robert H. (formerly Ben-
son, Barbara), 269-70, 271, 285,
336, 457, 586

Wall Street Journal, 39

Wallace, Henry A., 107, 185, 302, 332,
544> 555

Wallace's Farmer, 297

Walter Reed Army Hospital, 270; Ben-
son at, 285, 380, 417, 418, 438-39,
491 fL; Dulles in, 438-39, 442; Mrs.
Eisenhower in, 359; Nixon in, 541;
Taft in, 130

Wannsee Guest House, 474

Waring, Fred, 44, 468

Warnick, Merrill N., 595

Warsaw, Poland, 475, 476-77

Wash-and-wear fabrics, 599

Washington, George, 572; Monument,

569-7°

Washington (state), 445

Washington, D.C., 7, 25, 43 fL, 113,
137-42, 456, 569-71. See also Con-
gress

Washington Cathedral, 442

Washington Daily News, 322

Washington Farmletter, 437-38, 459,
507, 522

Washington Monument, 569-70

Washington Post, 517, 539

Watanabe, Goro, 557

Watkins, Arthur V., 4, 25

Weeks, Sinclair, 34, 248, 457

Welker, Herman, 39

Wells, Oris V., 152

Westchester Apartments, 43, 47, 49-
50, 109

What Men Live By, 16

Wheat, 58, 255 ff., 320, 347, 351, 383,
416, 444 ff., 459 if., 500-9 passim,

INDEX

521 ff., 598; Acreage Reserve and,
291 ff., 358; Benson testifies on,
180-81, 231, 438; compared to
beets, 435; exports, 237, 238, 365,
366, 537, 557, 561; IWA, 26, 88-
89; Kansas, 75, 198, 445; loan
stocks, 93; in omnibus bill, 20 1;
referendum, 144-45; special mes-
sages and, 164 ff., 171, 429 ff.; 2-
price plan, 210-11, 312 ff., 319

Wheeler, Clyde A., 358, 503

Whelan Drug Stores, 91

Where Love Is, There God Is Also, 16

Where We Stand, 530

White, Francis, 94, 241

White, William L., 550-51

White, William S., 130

White House (building), 46, 48-49,
124-25, 202, 412-13

Whitman, Ann, 119

Whitney, Idaho, 15

Whitten, Jamie L., 106, 164, 407, 417,
445; Benson's hearings, 99-101,
176-79, 229, 350, 435 ff., 508

Wickard, Claude R., 108-^, 379, 414

Wiese, Alvin, 595

Willard Hotel, 518

Williams, Esther, 44

Willkie, Wendell, 362, 561

Wilson, Charles E., 34 ff., 45-46, 49, 98,
332

627

Wilson, M. L., 32

Wilson, Woodrow, 573

Wisconsin, 117, 148-49, 411-12, 553

Woloriek, Mr. and Mrs. Stephen, 475

Women's National Press Club, 323

Wood, Bert, 593

Wool, 165, 192, 204, 216, 405; amount

in storage, 171; bill passed, 193;

and 4-year limit, 210, 211; plan,

179, 188; to Sweden, 372
Wordsworth, William, 200
World Center Building, 30, 43
World Series, 41
World War I, 56, 424
World War II, 9, 56, 177, 379, 457~

58, 558; Stringfellow in, 217
Wyoming, 156, 256, 412, 588
Wyoming State Tribune, 551

Yankus case, 426

Young, Brigham, 569

Young, Cliff, 414

Young, Milton R., 67-68, 74, 75, J 90,
307, 314, 522; and Benson's con-
firmation, 46; at Benson's hearings,
38, 39, 52, 102; on Benson's quit-
ting, 149; and President's message,
503, 504; on price-support exten-
sion, 191

Yugoslavia, 473~74, 49°

D38

Wmw : * : riUttR

MkiMLliflHflN

>-"

R^^^H

^^H

ft BBWDFW ' >"**kW

:-r ?N ftp

<* ^ It

(continued from front flap)
both front stage center and from the wings.
He writes movingly of the last days of two
Republican giants: Robert Taft and John
Foster Dulles, and he painfully records the
cXnge in Richard Nixon, giving Ms reasons
for the Vice-President's loss in 1J60

But equally important is the readers dis-
coveries about two men. The first, the Presi-
dent of the United States. Here we see what
Imlrkable loyalty General Eise^ower
showed for this embattled Cabmetofficei
the advice he gave him, the decisions he
made. The second is, of course, Ezra Taft
Benson himself. Here is a warm picture of
wholesome, serious, and amusing family lite,
his deeply felt religious convictions-with an
especially moving account of his visit to a
Russian church - his personal relationships
with other members of the administration
his church, and the President, all told with
unusual sincerity and conviction.

Using the "cross fires" as an example of
what it is like to be a major public figure,
Ezra Taft p.-nson has written an important,
lively, and ..ul record of the harsh

political realities of the Eisenhower years
and along the way tells the story of what
happens when a plain man and his family
go to Washington.

JACKET PHOTOGRAPH COURTESY OF THE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

JACKET DESIGN BY AL NAGY

Printed in the U.S.A.

a:

- 59

illinium

104 633

c
c Z

CD <

7) C/)